Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 13:58:31 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" <freebsd-rc@freebsd.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mountlate being too mount-happy Message-ID: <CADLo83_GGOQ-f%2B4%2BTYPNChGztiA8_8GRL=y6aWc66rpmTNo4sw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> <CADLo838LPHdd9eooyODket%2BW5ef2eHF0uSXaqsFAs%2Bw0Dtk87A@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_ACAtUvqZYmv4A9Os9rTtxxdLK8e6n6YSrYhYJbiRk-w@mail.gmail.com> <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> <CADLo83-siiSyeg%2BqUdO9U2Et%2Bm=WOJ2pp9gWYQY4_8MW18M_eA@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3 March 2013 11:05, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote >>> in <CADLo83_ACAtUvqZYmv4A9Os9rTtxxdLK8e6n6YSrYhYJbiRk-w@mail.gmail.com>: >>> >>> ut> [dragging it up again!] >>> ut> >>> ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> ut> >> Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote >>> ut> >> in <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu>: >>> ut> >> >>> ut> >> mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: >>> ut> >> mj> > Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote >>> ut> >> mj> > in < >>> ut> CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: >>> ut> >> mj> > >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> >>> ut> wrote: >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> >>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_GGOQ-f%2B4%2BTYPNChGztiA8_8GRL=y6aWc66rpmTNo4sw>