Alexander Eremin wrote: >> 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
Fantastic Alex. Thank you! Joe
