Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:35:15 +0000
From:      "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
To:        =?utf-8?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=C5=82a?= <trasz@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: [CFT] Autofs.
Message-ID:  <5C88BFBD-798C-4F99-92E2-5F75FE622613@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140804161710.GA32801@pc5.home>
References:  <20140730071933.GA20122@pc5.home> <3DA39B51-4CE5-437B-9B03-7E34CC954A7E@lists.zabbadoz.net> <20140804161710.GA32801@pc5.home>

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

On 04 Aug 2014, at 16:17 , Edward Tomasz Napiera=C5=82a =
<trasz@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 0804T1252, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> On 30 Jul 2014, at 07:19 , Edward Tomasz Napiera=C5=82a =
<trasz@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> At the link below you will find a patch that adds the new =
automounter.
>>> The patch is against yesterdays 11.0-CURRENT.
>>>=20
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~trasz/autofs-head-20140729.diff
>>=20
>> I also just submitted =
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D192379 to allow -o =
vers=3D mount_nfs compatibility, which makes it easier to integrate with =
Linux/OSX/Solaris LDAP setups and mount options from LDAP.
>=20
> Nice!  Will you commit it?

Yeah and MFC for 10.1 unless someone speaks up the next day or two.   I =
have updated the man page locally and I emailed Rick Macklem; will see =
if he=E2=80=99s around.


>>> Testing is welcome.  Please start with manual pages, eg. =
automount(8).
>>=20
>>=20
>> I found one case now doing the aforementioned where when the initial =
mount_nfs fails (e.g., for invalid options), then a later mount did not =
succeed either, with the correct mount options;  I did try to run =
automount -u in between tries, as well as service automountd restart, =
but that did not make a change;  given I was short on time, a reboot of =
my desktop made this go away.   Is there some =E2=80=9Cnegative =
caching=E2=80=9D in the kernel module possibly that will not retry the =
mount for another time or something=E2=80=94as in if I were more patient =
and waited 5 minutes, would it maybe just have worked again?
>=20
> There is no negative caching.  I'll see if I can figure out the cause
> for this.

Thanks.  I can possibly try to do some more tracing and debugging later =
in the week if needed.

=E2=80=94=20
Bjoern A. Zeeb             "Come on. Learn, goddamn it.", WarGames, 1983




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5C88BFBD-798C-4F99-92E2-5F75FE622613>