[Suspend2-devel] Re: disk consistency
johannes at sipsolutions.net
Wed Jul 12 09:12:21 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 11:00 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> I would call it a bug, but mis-conception. At least for a journaling
> file system you can have different concepts of `read-only'. One is
> leaving the device completely untouched (what I'd prefer), second
> replay the journal, and third something inbetween which leaves the
> device untouched but presents the filesystem in a state `as-if' the
> journal would have been replayed.
The second is what you get.
> I still don't see why a strict read-only acces should be
> dangerous. The boot-loader is doing that anyhow.
Boot loaders either have their own filesystem code that simply doesn't
ever write to the underlying block device, or simply store at what
blocks the kernel is located.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the TuxOnIce-devel