Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:44:28 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> To: "'Doug Barton'" <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, 'Ken Smith' <kensmith@buffalo.edu>, 'Parker-Smith' <daveps@vicor.com>, phk@freebsd.org, 'Julian Elischer' <julian@freebsd.org>, "Robison, Dave" <Dave.Robison@fisglobal.com> Subject: RE: mount(8) bug? rc.d/mountlate bug? bug in both? Message-ID: <044c01ccb14c$55b99bc0$012cd340$@fisglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <4ED952AF.3060404@FreeBSD.org> References: <039201ccb0ab$b3db9470$1b92bd50$@fisglobal.com> <4ED862D6.9090807@FreeBSD.org> <039f01ccb0da$67b50f20$371f2d60$@fisglobal.com> <4ED952AF.3060404@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:35 PM > To: Devin Teske > Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org; 'Ken Smith'; 'Parker-Smith'; phk@freebsd.org; > 'Julian Elischer'; Dave@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: mount(8) bug? rc.d/mountlate bug? bug in both? > > On 12/02/2011 02:08, Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:32 PM > >> To: Devin Teske > >> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org; Ken Smith; Parker-Smith; > >> Dave@FreeBSD.ORG; phk@freebsd.org; 'Julian Elischer' > >> Subject: Re: mount(8) bug? rc.d/mountlate bug? bug in both? > >> > >> Short answer, tag the mount(s) noauto in fstab, and mount them in > > /etc/rc.local. > >> > > > > That may be the simplest approach. > > > > However, we're looking more for a solution that involves keeping the > > NFS mounts in fstab(5). > > Why said anything about moving the NFS mounts out of fstab? s/mounts in fstab(5)/mounting logic entirely contained within fstab(5)/ > Not to mention, you specifically asked for a solution that involved no code > changes. Now you're proposing code changes. You expect everybody that asks questions to wait indefinitely for an answer and do nothing in the mean time? What a sad world. > > I propose the following [UNTESTED] patch, which tries to make > > remote-errors non-fatal to a filesystem marked as "bg". > > I would not be supportive of such a modification. An error is an error, and needs > to be flagged as such. An error is an error except when the code treats errors of different types differently (which it currently does). Currently right-now, as we speak, mount_nfs(8) is considering local errors differently than remote errors when it comes to NFS filesystems marked with the "bg" option. My patch proposes that remote errors and local errors be treated the same when "bg" is passed (which currently, remote errors are fatal while local errors are not). You seem to contradict yourself (just sayin'). -- Devin _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?044c01ccb14c$55b99bc0$012cd340$>