> Alexander Eremin wrote: > >> Alexander Eremin wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> pls review changes for bug 10098 (usbcopy does > not > >> deal with smedia > >>> mounted usb flash properly) > >>> > >>> webrev: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~alhazred/10098/ > >>> > >>> Also fixed that after 'format' new Solaris slice > >> was mounted again > >>> with Nautilus popup window. > >>> > >>> Tested on snv125: > >>> # mount -p > >>> ... > >>> /dev/dsk/c2t0d0p0:1 - /media/NONAME pcfs - no > >>> > >> > nosuid,hidden,nofoldcase,clamptime,noatime,timezone=-1 > >> 0800 > >>> /dev/dsk/c2t0d0s0 - /mnt ufs - no > >>> rw,intr,largefiles,logging,xattr,onerror=panic > >>> > >>> # ./usbcopy osol121.usb > >>> Found the following USB devices: > >>> 0: /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0p0 976.5 MB Multi Flash > >> Reader 1.00 > >>> Enter the number of your choice: 0 > >>> > >>> WARNING: All data on your USB storage will be > lost. > >>> Are you sure you want to install to > >>> Multi Flash Reader 1.00, 976 MB at > >> /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0p0 ? (y/n) y > >>> Copying and verifying image to USB device > >>> Finished 889 MB in 280 seconds (3.1MB/s) > >>> 0 block(s) re-written due to verification failure > >>> Installing grub to USB device /dev/rdsk/c2t0d0s0 > >>> Completed copy to USB > >>> # > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regrds, > >>> ::alhazred > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> caiman-discuss mailing list > >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > >>> > >> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-di > >> scuss > >> > >> Alexander, > >> > >> The code changes seem OK to me but it's not clear > to > >> me if your test > >> environment actually exhibits the problem reported > in > >> bug 10098. Does > >> it? Maybe I just missing something... ? If I am > >> please just let me know > >> and describe what your testing covers. > >> > >> As reported in the bug, it was not always possible > to > >> reproduce this > >> problem I think it would be valuable to do some > more > >> testing. To ensure > >> this actually fixes the problem I would like to > ask > >> that the test output > >> include a reproduction of the problem reported in > bug > >> 10098 using the > >> original usbcopy. Then see it resolved using the > >> usbcopy with your > >> proposed changes. > >> > >> > >> Thank you! Joe > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> caiman-discuss mailing list > >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > >> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-di > >> scuss > > > > Thanks for reviewing Joe, > > here's only output from "difficult" case when > smedia has a pcfs and solaris partitions and they all > was mounted automatically. Also tested with one and > two pcfs partitions as reported in bug. After test I > haven't them mounted. > > # mount -p > > ... > > /dev/dsk/c2t0d0p0 - /media/NO NAME pcfs - no > nosuid,hidden,nofoldcase,clamptime,noatime,timezone=-1 > 0800 > > # ./usbcopy osol121.usb > > ... > > # mount -p|grep c2t0d0p0 > > # > > > > Second umount after 'format' is required because > using usbcopy in fresh snv125 > > I found that newly created partition is mounting > again. Number of seconds for sleep also found using > some tests, lees than 5 is not enough. > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > Thanks you for the reply Alex. > > One more question/suggestion. > > Would it make sense to replace: > > 175 # umount new slice > 176 sleep 5 > 177 umount -f $s0bdev > /dev/null 2>&1 > ith something like: > > > typeset -i umount_loop=15 > typeset -i loop_cnt=0 > > while [[ ${loop_cnt} -lt ${umount_loop} ]]; do > > # umount new slice > umount -f $s0bdev > /dev/null 2>&1 > if [[ $? -eq 0 ]]; then > break; > fi > # if the umount failed try again in a second > sleep 1 > (( loop_cnt=${loop_cnt} + 1 )) > > done > > I think it might be safer and help avoid having the > user wait any longer > than needed. > > What do you think? > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/linstinfo/caiman-di
Yes, it's more better ;) I'll test this tomorrow and will update fix if ok. Thanks a lot, Joe! Regards, Alex -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
