Evan Layton wrote:
> Ethan Quach wrote:
>
>> Evan Layton wrote:
>>
>>> Not really, 2904 is for adding an enhancement for an option that will
>>> show the mountpoint property for a BE that is not mounted and to be able
>>> to show if the BE is currently mounted or not. Right now if a BE is not
>>> mounted we show a "-" for the mountpoint and not the current value of
>>> the mountpoint property.
>>>
>>> For 4735 the BE in question is activated, mounted and then booted. The
>>> fact that it was mounted and not unmounted before being booted is more
>>> related to 1156.
>>>
>> That is indeed what caused the user to get into this scenario (which
>> is a separate issue from 2904), but it wasn't clear to me that that's what
>> the complaint was about.
>>
>> The text in 4735 should be cleared up then. The defect reads:
>>
>> "beadm list -a" and "zfs list" are inconsistent about mountpoint
>> after reboot if a BE was mounted before the reboot.
>>
>
> Yes 4735 does need a little cleaning.
>
>
It is not 2904. Yes, actually it is a ZFS inconsistency while the libbe
and beadm are correct as far
as mounpoint of dataset is concerned. I should have changed the synopsis
to "zfs list show wrong
mountpoint after reboot if a BE was mounted before reboot". But since
the bug was closed, maybe
it doesn't make sense to change it. Actually I would like to file a bug
on bugster zfs to track it. Before
that, I wanted to make sure if it was a ZFS bug or a ZFS boot bug since
they are in different category
in bugster.
>
>>> I was talking with Lori on Friday about this issue and it's one that
>>> exists in snv (with LU) as well. What the ZFS team is thinking about is
>>> a way to add a temporary mount point property that is not kept across a
>>> reboot. With this change the BE could be mounted at a temporary mount
>>> point but on reboot the persistent mount point would be used.
>>>
>> Theres been talk about this for some time now. Was there any
>> indication in your conversation that its actually going to get
>> worked on soon?
>>
>
> Yes Lori indicated that they were looking at a fix in the near future
> but I don't know exactly when. I will see if I can narrow down the
> time frame for this.
>
Thanks
Jason
> Thanks,
> -evan
>
>
>> thanks,
>> -ethan
>>
>>> -evan
>>>
>>> Ethan Quach wrote:
>>>
>>>> The issue in 4735 seems to be more along the lines of 2904 than 1156.
>>>> i.e. That additional mountpoint display requested in 2904 always be
>>>> consistent with what zfs shows as the mountpoint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -ethan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jason Zhao wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Evan:
>>>>>
>>>>> In RC2, I could still hit bug 4735 which was marked as duplicate of
>>>>> 1156.
>>>>> Since 1156 is closed as WONTFIX, and obviously it is not a libbe
>>>>> bug. From
>>>>> your comment, it seems like it is the ZFS boot bug. Do you know the
>>>>> bug ID
>>>>> in bugster which can cover the bug, if there is not, I would like to
>>>>> file a
>>>>> bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Jason
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>
