There are people out that say that readonly mount was
initially designed to behave as physically read only.
fsck was a wanted side-effect...
And trust me, most people think so before dialing
with a journaled filesystem. This was discussed
to death on the reiserFS list.
Clearly the definition of "ro" is weak, does it mean media or
filesystem view ? It's even weak on lower levels: There are
also disks out there that write even if physical write-protection
is enabled (for example auto-remapping after an ECC-recovery read).
Anyway, it is "especially" critical on the root filesystem because the
authors of filesystems can't support two ro states on boot.
Reiserfs allowed -oro,noreplay.
Please tell me how to specify "noreplay" for the initial "/" mount
:)
Yes, I think that the journal is an integral part of the filesystem.
But this has nothing to do with forcing a write on "ro" mounts, which
I interpret as design bug. (ro,noreplay is also a kind of design bug,
everything except a virtual replay under physical ro conditions looks
like a design bug to me because it breaks user expectations either
by writing on "ro" or by giving an invalid view by "noreplay")
--ciao - Stefan
" ( cd /lib ; ln -s libBrokenLocale-2.2.so libNiedersachsen.so ) " Stefan Traby Linux/ia32 fax: +43-3133-6107-9 Mitterlasznitzstr. 13 Linux/alpha phone: +43-3133-6107-2 8302 Nestelbach Linux/sparc http://www.hello-penguin.com Austria mailto://st.traby@opengroup.org Europe mailto://stefan@hello-penguin.com - 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/