Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:14:24 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Matthew West <mwest@uct.ac.za> Subject: Re: quota and NFS Message-ID: <20001128101424.J8051@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20001128194825.H11982@ringworld.oblivion.bg>; from roam@orbitel.bg on Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:48:25PM %2B0200 References: <20001128153456.A32289@apotheosis.org.za> <20001128094317.H8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001128194825.H11982@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> [001128 09:49] wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:43:17AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Matthew West <mwest@uct.ac.za> [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? Sounds good, but being able to do an interruptable/timeoutable statfs would be even nicer. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001128101424.J8051>