Messages in this thread | | | From | David Woodhouse <> | Subject | Re: Journaling: Surviving or allowing unclean shutdown? | Date | Fri, 05 Jan 2001 11:58:56 +0000 |
| |
sct@redhat.com said: > In what way? A root fs readonly mount is usually designed to prevent ^^^^^^^ > the filesystem from being stomped on during the initial boot so that > fsck can run without the filesystem being volatile. That's the only > reason for the readonly mount: to allow recovery before we enable > writes. With ext3, that recovery is done in the kernel, so doing that > recovery during mount makes perfect sense even if the user is mounting > root readonly.
Alternative reasons for readonly mount include "my hard drive is dying and I don't want _anything_ to write to it because it'll explode".
You mount it read-only, recover as much as possible from it, and bin it.
You _don't_ want the fs code to ignore your explicit instructions not to write to the medium, and to destroy whatever data were left.
-- dwmw2
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |