Re: Strange behavior after "rm -rf //"

From: Ivan Sizov <sivan606@gmail.com>
To: Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>, Ivan Sizov <sivan606@gmail.com>,
	Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>,
	Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Strange behavior after "rm -rf //"
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:00:59 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMG9ccw9meTUSoH9DVoa7zuhxR-q5N_2W3ULMWFGk7AbnHzKDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160808185237.GA9644@carfax.org.uk>

2016-08-08 21:52 GMT+03:00 Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk>:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:38:28PM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>> P.S. IMHO, log replay by default is a quite dangerous thing. I didn't
>> know about that change and I could lose all files if the live USB had
>> 4.6 kernel))
>
>    Log reply on mount has _always_ been the default, and should remain
> so. It gives you the expected semantics after a power loss: all th
> efiles that you'd written up to the point of the power loss actually
> appear afterwards. (If this didn't happen, you could lose up to 30s of
> writes from before the crash).
>
>    It's only very recently that there's been an option to prevent it,
> which is useful in a limited number of cases (such as trying to
> undelete a file, which is not really a supported operation in any
> case).

I mean only RO mount, of course.

So, will zero-log prevent my files during RW mount?

-- 
Ivan Sizov (SIvan)