From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 28 9:49: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (pool52-tch-1.Sofia.0rbitel.net [212.95.170.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 115C937B400 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 49875 invoked by uid 1000); 28 Nov 2000 17:48:25 -0000 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:48:25 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Cc: Matthew West Subject: Re: quota and NFS Message-ID: <20001128194825.H11982@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Matthew West References: <20001128153456.A32289@apotheosis.org.za> <20001128094317.H8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001128094317.H8051@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:43:17AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:43:17AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Matthew West [001128 05:35] wrote: > > Who do I prod to get someone to take a look at bin/12939 and bin/6183? > > > > I've been using both patches now since FreeBSD 4.0 and they make life > > a lot more pleasant when using quota on a machine with NFS mounts. > > These both look sorta hackish, if you could somehow figure a way > to determine if a mount is hung instead of these two fixes it would > be a lot better. > > bin/12939: > -l flag to ignore NFS mounts is hackish, what about smbfs and coda? How does 'ignore non-local mounts' (MNT_LOCAL in statfs()) sound? G'luck, Peter -- No language can express every thought unambiguously, least of all this one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message