From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752954Ab1AZKvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:51:45 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:60813 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752259Ab1AZKvo (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:51:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=JJNDPptRzoPYUjPioiy9fAz1POX4hanr2QOWmgiAPGo8d/O228JM5oK+lh1DohYxGC JwAGHDAhn3q/8NI9D7BEz6sOBpYXMKeePDH7xz5RdTT4T3oxXKvOANprmLCZbTc3P2Nk 9XU10SbwNl6pJ8Xx8u88m+Wlbw5E9zSB7H9Tw= Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:51:39 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Jan Kara Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Vivek Goyal , axboe@kernel.dk, tytso@mit.edu, shli@kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, snitzer@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kmannth@us.ibm.com, cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, rwheeler@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, josef@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Deprecate barrier= and nobarrier mount options Message-ID: <20110126105139.GJ12520@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110126071200.GE32261@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110126072329.GK27190@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com> <20110126093632.GB12520@htj.dyndns.org> <20110126104734.GA23245@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110126104734.GA23245@quack.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:47:34AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > Ted should have a final word about this but I believe it's possible to > deprecate the mount options. Maybe with some transition period where > deprecation message is shown but the option actually still works. That > being said I'm not sure what we should do when someone has a disk with two > partitions and one partition is mounted with barriers and another one > without them - sure, one has to think hard to find a sane use case for this > (possibly if user does not care about data after a crash on one of the > partitions, in which case he should probably use nojournal mode) but it > should probably work. The policy can be made per-bdev (which maps to per-partition), so I don't think that's a big problem. Thanks. -- tejun