On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Seblu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi <[email protected]> >> --- >> rc.sysinit | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/rc.sysinit b/rc.sysinit >> index 733149c..6a01029 100755 >> --- a/rc.sysinit >> +++ b/rc.sysinit >> @@ -29,9 +29,9 @@ if ! /bin/mountpoint -q /dev; then >> fi >> /bin/mkdir -p /run/lock /dev/{pts,shm} >> /bin/chmod 1777 /run/lock >> -/bin/mountpoint -q /dev/pts || /bin/mount /dev/pts &> /dev/null \ >> +/bin/mountpoint -q /dev/pts || /bin/mount -n /dev/pts &> /dev/null \ >> || /bin/mount -n -t devpts devpts /dev/pts -o >> mode=620,gid=5,nosuid,noexec >> -/bin/mountpoint -q /dev/shm || /bin/mount /dev/shm &> /dev/null \ >> +/bin/mountpoint -q /dev/shm || /bin/mount -n /dev/shm &> /dev/null \ >> || /bin/mount -n -t tmpfs shm /dev/shm -o mode=1777,nosuid,nodev >> >> # remount root ro to allow for fsck later on, we remount now to
Thanks for the patch! > Why doing this ? With /etc/mtab linked to /proc/mounts, why just every > time calling in with -n ? We don't yet have the symlink, until we do we should use "-n" here. I'm planning to look into the remaining downsides of using libmount and symlinking mtab to /proc/self/monuts, to see if we can make the switch. "The others" are doing it, so hopefully we can join soon. If anyone knows of problems, I'd be interested to know. Cheers, Tom
