Hi Tim, On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:40:52AM -0600, Tim Serong wrote: > On 4/4/2011 at 09:32 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 01:47:34PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > > > On 2011-03-23T11:50:02, Lars Ellenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > # Take advantage of /etc/mtab if present, use portable mount command > > > > > # otherwise. Normalize format to "dev mountpoint fstype". > > > > > > I wonder if we shouldn't just always rely on "mount" and insist on that > > > providing proper data. > > > > > > Re-implementing mount seems like a bad idea. > > > > It does to me too. Do you know why isn't it used? And is > > there any difference between /proc/mounts and the mount output > > (apart from the format)? > > mount reads /etc/mtab, then falls back to /proc/mounts if the former > doesn't exist. > > I'm not sure if it does anything beyond that (I have some very faint > recollection of seeing "mount" block if there was a hung NFS mount > or something lying around - OTOH, my very faint recollection might > have been of "df", which is obviously completely different, so maybe > I should just shut up now).
:) I think that it was df(1) or ls(1) or similar wanting to really get something from the filesystem. Can't recall seeing mount block. But it makes me wonder why do we simulate mount(1). Cheers, Dejan > Regards, > > Tim > > > -- > Tim Serong <[email protected]> > Senior Clustering Engineer, OPS Engineering, Novell Inc. > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
