Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 08:43:59 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org>, kostikbel@gmail.com, cperciva@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r274653 - head/usr.sbin/freebsd-update Message-ID: <1416321839.350194.192432157.42AB6F37@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <20141118142449.GW17068@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201411181338.sAIDc9U3051869@svn.freebsd.org> <20141118142449.GW17068@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014, at 08:24, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Why do you suppose that md-backed volumes are not persistent ? > vnode-backed devices are stable. > You're right, a vnode-backed filesystem would definitely be persistent. Clearly I've done a poor job of researching this thoroughly. I've now read md(4) in its entirety and remember mounting disk images like Linux's "mount -o loop" in the past. I don't see a way to reliably detect an mfs filesystem because it uses md and masquerades as ufs in df's output. Do you have any suggestions on how to detect this reliably? On the other hand, anyone could write a filesystem we aren't blacklisting and fall into the same trap. I thought this was going to help a few people since Oliver reported it and seemed to have a valid use-case for a tmpfs mounted /var but still wanted to use freebsd-update. Instead I'm beginning to think we should just throw this away and add an entry into BUGS in the man page and call it a day. We can't keep everyone from shooting their feet off and we probably shouldn't waste our time trying. Thoughts?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1416321839.350194.192432157.42AB6F37>