On Sunday 15 April 2012 17:18, 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, and I will implement that if util-linux's umount does the same. Does it? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
