On 3 March 2013 11:05, Chris Rees <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Can anyone please review/approve this patch for me? http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-rc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
