Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:28:28 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" <freebsd-rc@freebsd.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mountlate being too mount-happy Message-ID: <CADLo838LPHdd9eooyODket%2BW5ef2eHF0uSXaqsFAs%2Bw0Dtk87A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com> <20121118.074325.564844639489846824.hrs@allbsd.org> <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu> <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: > Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote > in <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu>: > > mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > mj> > Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote > mj> > in <CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: > mj> > > mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838LPHdd9eooyODket%2BW5ef2eHF0uSXaqsFAs%2Bw0Dtk87A>