> >> I would vote for decoupling. If I have SU on, then enable journaling, > >> then disable journaling, I would expect SU to still be on. > > > > Fully agreed. I see no reason why these sould be coupled. > > It does not look like it is a prerequisite to have SU enabled when you > want to enable SUJ. So I assume SUJ implies SU, and as such I think > you can agree that it is not easy to determine at disable time of SUJ, > if the FS was SU before or not.
If SUJ requires SU then IMHO tunefs should prohibit setting SUJ unless SU was already enabled, with a nice explanatory error message if needed. Looking at it from a slightly different angle - assume I have a file system with SU enabled, and I want to experiment with SUJ. So I enable SUJ. When I'm finished testing, maybe I want to disable SUJ again. I would be *highly surprised* (badly breaking POLA) if SU was disabled at the same time. > So whatever the consensus is (disabling SUJ does or dosn't enable SU), > the man page needs to tell what it does. Agreed. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
