From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 18 14:29:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EFC1D4; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:29:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34D48FC0C; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:28:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id je9so857005bkc.13 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:28:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=TKGImLFllUSlb4RtPj9YKCv25/2Z11XyjYvNot6Qsiw=; b=I6CXzIkb7htN6dl2JiHpHtm2FxgB48/nfRm1iQbVesA9i6CQYN9yU//flJ735J/knz dcQR6CzN0+L1wNNjq/rTt6wcu7zEOA0PN5v88W1ryQcCpAa9qQ4SYzDZvIOdexDGdLXp O+y7ml8lwxmRpYkWGgUkAaoYOWNsNvJWQyWSTSRL9CXel07EV33LXuHC8486As5pVsLy 5AzDcmBkQb4Flm6bo/oXGCo7mUahN/t8gIw/HmynWD2A/PhkW2IJuQhfoOHTzadmLvDb eUZ2J4Hns5AOw3pI1sszTAYCHxeeh4me3TrSdTZyF1PlrLrGlk7aq31/gvbL2KVKjS9l FvOw== Received: by 10.204.147.22 with SMTP id j22mr3874902bkv.66.1353248938785; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:28:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:28:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20121118.074325.564844639489846824.hrs@allbsd.org> <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu> <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:28:28 +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, 18 Nov 2012 14:29:01 -0000 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 : > 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. Chris