> From [email protected] Wed Jun 22 10:57:33 2011 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:56:07 +0100 > From: RW <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 'mount -u' stumper > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:54:53 -0500 (CDT) > Robert Bonomi wrote: > > > > That's a large part of why I want to make it 'go away'. It _is_ a > > "lie" on a RO system. Meaningless, and 'misleading' if you don't see > > the RO option as well. > > > > When the filesystem _does_ need to be RW, I _want_ softupdates > > enabled. It's a 'good thing' then;. When it's initially mounted RO > > softupdates are _visibly_ off. I just want to restore that precise > > situaion/presentation when i 'update' mount thefilesystem to RO. > > I'd argue the other way around, that mount should display what's > configured even if some options do nothing in combination. >
I wouldn't argue very hard about that. what I _really_ want is 'consistency', As it is, If I have updated mounted the RO filesystem as RW, and then update mount it again, _back_to_ RO, I get a security alert overnight because things "aren't the same" as they were previously. Insult to injury, next time I reboot -- even _months_ later -- I get *_another* bogus security alert, because 'soft-updates' has (finally!) disappeared from the mount listing.. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
