On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > That'd be fantastic, thank you. >
Ping? :) Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-rc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
