Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:37:12 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] mount can figure out fstype automatically Message-ID: <44AFDF38.3030707@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060708160931.GA3871@crodrigues.org> References: <20060708152801.GA3671@crodrigues.org> <86ac7krtu1.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060708160931.GA3871@crodrigues.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 05:37:26PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote: > >>What about cases where there may be several matching file systems? >>For instance, a clean ext3 file system is also a valid ext2 file >>system (and vice versa). > > > Currently, FreeBSD can only mount ext2 with mount -t ext2fs. > > A better example would probably be udf and cd9660 filesystems. > > Right now the logic is to iterate over the list of known local > filesystems (always starting with "ufs"), skipping over "synthetic" > and "network" filesystems, > i.e. similar to the list produced by lsvfs: > > Filesystem Refs Flags > -------------------------------- ----- --------------- > ufs 8 > reiserfs 0 read-only > nfs4 0 network > ext2fs 0 > ntfs 0 > cd9660 0 read-only > procfs 1 synthetic > msdosfs 0 > xfs 0 > devfs 1 synthetic > nfs 0 network > > > > The first matching filesystem wins....not perfect, but > maybe good enough for a lot of cases. > > mount -t always works if you want to specify the fstype. > Where is udf in the list? Btw, it's not that udf and cd9660 are compatible, they aren't by any means. It's that the can co-exist on the same media, and often times a UDF filesystem has cd9660 structures available for compatibility. If you added udf to your list above with a higher priority than cd9660, everything should 'just work', and you'd still be able to override it manually. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44AFDF38.3030707>