Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:05:07 +0000
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:  <CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-siiSyeg%2BqUdO9U2Et%2Bm=WOJ2pp9gWYQY4_8MW18M_eA@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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?

:)

Chris



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ>