From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 16 13:32:52 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA07103
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 13:32:52 -0700
Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA07097
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 13:32:50 -0700
Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1)
	id AA14100; Sun, 16 Jul 95 14:25:32 MDT
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Message-Id: <9507162025.AA14100@cs.weber.edu>
Subject: Re: FS root mount handling discrepancy
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 14:25:31 MDT
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199507160633.QAA17212@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Jul 16, 95 04:33:55 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52]
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

[ ... ]

> mfs_mountroot() and nfs_mountroot() call inittodr() too.  Volatile and
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> readonly file systems won't have a useful timestamp to call it with.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ ... ]

> I think it currently must be called even when the timestamp is 0.  It
> doesn't get called except by mountroot routines.

Should a volatile or a readonly file system call it with (time_t)0 or
not call it at all?  I thought "not call it at all".

If it's supposed to call it with 0, then cd9600_mountroot is currently
broken (I'll do the fix either way; don't worry about fixing it now)?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.