SUJ Changes

[Garrett Cooper]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Marcelo/Porks <marcelorossi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/10, Marcelo/Porks <marcelorossi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi! I tested the r208241 and it's seems to be ok but this calls my
>> atention to other thing: Could I disable de SU when the SUJ is
>> enabled?
>>
>> I did some tests and seems that I can do this (logs bellow).
>>
>> But will SUJ work properly with SU disabled?
>
> Hi guys. I'm not sure if I could call this a problem but I can disable
> SU when SUJ is enabled, so SUJ will remain enabled and SU will be
> disabled.
>
> #tunefs -j enable /dev/device
> #tunefs -n disable /dev/device
>
> I did a patch for sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c that disable SUJ when the user
> disable SU. Maybe this will be useful for some of you.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Index: sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c        (revision 208580)
> +++ sbin/tunefs/tunefs.c        (working copy)
> @@ -460,6 +460,14 @@
>                        if ((~sblock.fs_flags & FS_DOSOFTDEP) == FS_DOSOFTDEP)
>                                warnx("%s remains unchanged as disabled", name);
>                        else {
> +                               /* also disable SUJ */
> +                               if ((sblock.fs_flags & FS_SUJ) == FS_SUJ) {
> +                                       warnx("soft updates journaling
> will be disabled too");
> +                                       journal_clear();
> +                                       sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_SUJ;
> +                                       sblock.fs_sujfree = 0;
> +                                       warnx("remove .sujournal to
> reclaim space");
> +                               }
>                                sblock.fs_flags &= ~FS_DOSOFTDEP;
>                                warnx("%s cleared", name);
>                        }

I think that it makes sense to have this as a force option as someone
may want to retain their journal instead of disposing of it
automatically.

I think that the 2nd warnx should be the first warnx, and the 2nd
warnx can be removed as it'll be quickly followed up by <blah>
cleared. Changing `remove' to `removing' and changing `.sujournal' to
journal would a) make the action more correct and b) make the concept
more straightforward as to what's being removed, as Jeff or someone
else may decide to remove or rename .sujournal in the future, and it's
just another thing that users don't have to understand that aren't
familiar with FreeBSD or SUJ.

Thanks,
-Garrett