3 ms·
BTW, one other stupidity is that Linux's HFS+ implementation refuses to mount journaled volumes when Apple designed it to be backward compatible.
by yuhong 12y ago
BTW, one other stupidity is that Linux's HFS+ implementation refuses to mount journaled volumes when Apple designed it to be backward compatible.
- ajross 12y agoHow could that possibly work? I presume by "backward compatible" you mean that the data outside the journal remains consistent, and the journal layer is capable of detecting modifications made by non-journaled mounts. That's... fine, I guess. It prevents the obvious corruption cases. But the only plausible recovery mechanism after such a mount is to throw out the journal! That's not likely to be acceptable to most users ("I booted to linux and back, and now a bunch of new files disappeared!"). That's stretching the meaning of "compatible" too far.
- yuhong 12y agoPretty much. Look for lastModifiedVersion in: http://dubeiko.com/development/FileSystems/HFSPLUS/tn1150.html http://dubeiko.com/development/FileSystems/HFSPLUS/tn1150.ht...
- ajross 12y agoThen I fail to see how this is a stupidity. Linux is doing the right thing: there's no way for it to mount the filesystem without damage.
- cmurf 12y agoThat's not correct. It won't rw mount journaled HFS+ volumes, they are mounted ro by default. You can force them to mount rw and it'll ignore the journal possibly at the immediate or near future peril of the filesystem, depending on what state its in. I don't know why linux is so far behind on supporting it and doesn't bode well for supporting Core Storage volumes. Near as I can tell while HFS+/X are part of Darwin and thus at least sorta open sourced, I'm not finding any of the Core Storage stuff open sourced meaning it'd have to be completely reverse engineered.