From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 3 11:05:38 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7568481; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:05:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ia0-x232.google.com (mail-ia0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38973F25; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y26so3920705iab.37 for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:05:37 -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=4pDEe/W0qGLSGf3N3iEpGrXlR//Zrgjot4Rz/Av3Va4=; b=hagMNypXxkqfhQII40SAdt9d9icg/jItjld4wuR5Uv2pSKRXaMObqwEfc3er2h+cLr /zsJwKj0UeJUPt2JG5Z0jkGRLGksQOvRfjnzei3ZCC4FQB36NC2TWODQmyoamVbk5rhE dY/1fjp2bRPjVrOIk2P22sWiSis+7G0+WPp0jMGJfDo25HBAixFvB6PDfrd63IDLF3XL q2hr5hP9plZSCGhZgKsIovVJBP7vWfNc4knRSmw2qph1ZyGeDfwMcfb2ph5g5+sSgegI rzqBh+3d6Ft3n6hjCASM/gMzdEpAh8Cj/E2beqIxjnGPe+izB5qCRfLN8SdUoY64l12d AfmQ== X-Received: by 10.42.155.136 with SMTP id u8mr12483995icw.26.1362308737670; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 03:05:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.63.12 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 03:05:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:05:07 +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: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:05:38 -0000 On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees wrote: > 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. > Ping? :) Chris