On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Le 07/04/2012 01:18, Rob Landley a écrit : > >On 04/06/2012 01:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>Hi Florian ! > >> > >>>1) loopback mount "foo" to mount /bar > >>>2) umount /bar > >>>3) append new files and re-generate the "foo" cramfs image > >>>4) loopback mount "foo" to mount /bar > >>>5) the contents of /bar are the same as in 1) and not 3) > >> > >>>Obviously using umount -d in 2) fixes the issue, but I was wondering > >>>whether it would not be preferable to unconditionnaly delete the > >>>loopback device upon umount? util-linux does this actually, so other > >>>users might also be puzzled by such a case. > >> > >>I hit that too, some time ago, not cramfs but squashfs and ISO images. > >>That was the reason I added an "alias umount='umount -d'" to > >>my /etc/profile and added the "-d" to all umounts in scripts. > >> > >>IMHO it would be better to reverse definition of the "-d" option to > >>umount and do NOT delete the loop device if option gets specified and > >>drop/delete it in the default case. > > > >You mean the way I originally wrote it before this commit broke it? > > > >b2e578a1f2c3cf317b391a7d2c059d6a5f5368b8 is the first bad commit > >commit b2e578a1f2c3cf317b391a7d2c059d6a5f5368b8 > >Author: Denis Vlasenko<[email protected]> > >Date: Thu Feb 14 12:00:21 2008 +0000 > > > > umount: instead of non-standard -D, use -d with opposite meaning > > (closes bug 1604) > > > >I have no idea what bug 1604 was, but leaking loopback devices was > >wrong. I had code to automatically clean them up, it ran by default, > >and now it doesn't. > > Denys, what do you think about this? I agree with Rob here, not > having the loopback deleted by default is definitively confusing.
I agree with Rob too, at least this once.. ;-) Rich _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
