From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 22 21:31:31 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 29CA9498; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:31:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945646B0; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c10so12302915ieb.39 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=OjsnSjTrJZqCAev1s8NmtBgmP0sLYEsqF/2TvV09mIk=; b=dgBKlQ05ZUvvaRS1B06hIsd37xkA5Bys16dQfK5PcH966tg62sjXFlQWNX1UCoa0VI Iv6rqsDBaAAW3AhDF7nqy2+Sbh1+TrTHdJu9FJkSeesPVlEqYL7aUyWNAHol56Q4eonP 5T2WZo7787nkKz04w1AAuDALOSVlnNbOMFkD0tT0xQ5oKSUTZuUcnN2ww9BhXAQA59da 7DxWzWDiVuy5yg1jdZ6/6muH97+VpxXPqAytGSgyT9Gz7Sfr9TRJzfGyQYO3/iDlIYv3 GFXxZwlFKTc0STzx6WfJSDkzVX3fCPwyDfanjgareIoIchS0Rlz9dX5AgM7S+NI7Cxex FxkQ== X-Received: by 10.50.158.170 with SMTP id wv10mr13258729igb.75.1358890290257; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.73 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:30:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:30:59 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mountlate being too mount-happy To: Hiroki Sato Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:31:31 -0000 On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Chris Rees wrote > in : > > ut> [dragging it up again!] > ut> > ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees wrote: > ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: > ut> >> Mateusz Guzik 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 wrote > ut> >> mj> > in < > ut> CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: > ut> >> mj> > > ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler > ut> wrote: > ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees > 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. Chris