From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 18 10:20:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DDC878; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:20:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3F2CD3; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 16so6087547iea.12 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:20:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BCUg2gbdIMf0xNVHLTLI7JckmXTlXAZaXNLPKhZKZ+Q=; b=MwsnBVebkyX8k8ewyRWij+2dW+sFWEOfKABRdqdmLHf3s338TKCvWESAZJB9t75UW9 M0umq5I/X+YhJB4YKYf9ee8bUAaZZ5WH+Cz0ZgER61OwUWCeT5RIP8CFssgykDbNhlCS APM6KJXyf8lJelUmqqtAOZOSRnEKG2CYP3KYtZ01uvb25RR78o4EWdb8vrzaweXUJjrg DEmrO+YXjAPpWXa7tQP6zYmMDC5nxUjswnOgW9R337UUO5T+l7235IsO49rYlnkSxzqz 7L/0IBqDMxGDuhwFUkPmCZS+LtWkshKSgUfLGx+zLyVhhHkPXKDvOzOdkfHOYjbLJH/+ GSvg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.27.74 with SMTP id i10mr5557540icc.47.1358504423525; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.16.73 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.16.73 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:20:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121118.074325.564844639489846824.hrs@allbsd.org> <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu> <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:20:23 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mountlate being too mount-happy From: Chris Rees To: Hiroki Sato Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: Mateusz Guzik , "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" , Mateusz Guzik X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:20:24 -0000 [dragging it up again!] On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees wrote: > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: >> Mateusz Guzik wrote >> in <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu>: >> >> mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: >> mj> > Chris Rees wrote >> mj> > in < CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: >> mj> > >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler wrote: >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees wrote: >> mj> > ut> >> I'll take a look. >> mj> > ut> > >> mj> > ut> > untested: >> mj> > ut> >> mj> > ut> Based on Eitan's patch, I've tested this one, and documented it in mount(8) too: >> mj> > ut> >> mj> > ut> http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff >> mj> > ut> >> mj> > ut> Does anyone have any suggestions/objections/urge to approve it? >> mj> > >> mj> > Is the original problem due to backgrounding of NFS mount only? If >> mj> > so, implementing prevention of duplicate invocation into mount(8) >> mj> > would be more reasonable, I think. >> mj> > >> mj> >> mj> We have 2 distinct scripts that try to mount same set of filesystems. >> mj> I think this is the real bug here and proposed patches makes it go away in >> mj> an IMHO acceptable way. >> >> I just wanted to make sure if the case is limited to background NFS >> mount or not. >> >> rc.d/mountlate just tries to mount the filesystems that are not >> mounted yet at that time in addition to the "late" ones, not always >> to mount the same set twice. If it is a bug, it is better to simply >> fix -l to exclude not-yet-mounted ones without "late" keyword than >> adding another option. > > I don't think it's a bug as such-- -l option is clearly labelled in > the manpage (emphasis mine): > > When used in conjunction with the -a option, *also* mount those > file systems which are marked as ``late''. > > I think that for POLA and to avoid changing behaviour of an option > that's been there a long time we need the -L option. > > I disagree with Mateusz here-- split operations in rc makes two > scripts necessary; mount and mountlate are two separate operations, > done at different times. Hiroki-san, do you still believe that changing the behaviour of -l is the correct way to go, rather than add a -L option for only late filesystems? (mount -la currently mounts *all* filesystems, you suggested to change to just late). I'd like to fix this, but I want to make sure you're happy with the solution. Chris