Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote in <cadlo83_acatuvqzymv4a9os9rttxxdlk8e6n6ysryhyjbir...@mail.gmail.com>:
ut> [dragging it up again!] ut> ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote: ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato <[email protected]> wrote: ut> >> Mateusz Guzik <[email protected]> wrote ut> >> in <[email protected]>: ut> >> ut> >> mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: ut> >> mj> > Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote ut> >> mj> > in < ut> cadlo839wqzapenuqdovpq74yjcmkpqncekpvs_n9xnwmlrk...@mail.gmail.com>: ut> >> mj> > ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler <[email protected]> ut> wrote: ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees <[email protected]> ut> wrote: ut> >> mj> > ut> >> I'll take a look. ut> >> mj> > ut> > ut> >> mj> > ut> > untested: ut> >> mj> > ut> ut> >> mj> > ut> Based on Eitan's patch, I've tested this one, and documented ut> it in mount(8) too: ut> >> mj> > ut> ut> >> mj> > ut> http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff ut> >> mj> > ut> ut> >> mj> > ut> Does anyone have any suggestions/objections/urge to approve it? ut> >> mj> > ut> >> mj> > Is the original problem due to backgrounding of NFS mount only? If ut> >> mj> > so, implementing prevention of duplicate invocation into mount(8) ut> >> mj> > would be more reasonable, I think. ut> >> mj> > ut> >> mj> ut> >> mj> We have 2 distinct scripts that try to mount same set of filesystems. ut> >> mj> I think this is the real bug here and proposed patches makes it go ut> away in ut> >> mj> an IMHO acceptable way. ut> >> ut> >> I just wanted to make sure if the case is limited to background NFS ut> >> mount or not. ut> >> ut> >> rc.d/mountlate just tries to mount the filesystems that are not ut> >> mounted yet at that time in addition to the "late" ones, not always ut> >> to mount the same set twice. If it is a bug, it is better to simply ut> >> fix -l to exclude not-yet-mounted ones without "late" keyword than ut> >> adding another option. ut> > ut> > I don't think it's a bug as such-- -l option is clearly labelled in ut> > the manpage (emphasis mine): ut> > ut> > When used in conjunction with the -a option, *also* mount those ut> > file systems which are marked as ``late''. ut> > ut> > I think that for POLA and to avoid changing behaviour of an option ut> > that's been there a long time we need the -L option. ut> > ut> > I disagree with Mateusz here-- split operations in rc makes two ut> > scripts necessary; mount and mountlate are two separate operations, ut> > done at different times. ut> ut> Hiroki-san, do you still believe that changing the behaviour of -l is the ut> correct way to go, rather than add a -L option for only late filesystems? ut> (mount -la currently mounts *all* filesystems, you suggested to change to ut> just late). ut> ut> I'd like to fix this, but I want to make sure you're happy with the ut> solution. Sorry for being unresponsive. Can you give me a couple of days to double-check the behavior? -- Hiroki
pgpcKo2qaczqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
