From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 4 12:59:02 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF4225E; Sat, 4 May 2013 12:59:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BDD2193B; Sat, 4 May 2013 12:59:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id b11so2699252iee.37 for ; Sat, 04 May 2013 05:59:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=FKWXHIucZviFSQsFITYMxA6cNZ1GkJHKkefh4Z0daqE=; b=fMPZuIfAl0QnQ0PjkzubsqereEKNv/3t9AbDLpOp6jLEahMLrVLwXacIw4CWs1184J 70mH8lVt5MGDikMNJ0o0KMBe2PnyKc1uYC5Y0iDLFcdQicaUPoGWeC/vEJ1SCSIQoHj1 yl1N3End0F0MXcS4gyTPa2Y+oHtqmo5zgKLwiD6v/oR/XYC45x9AH4Yvu6ncDaNQEoNT FLt0MaQnVIXKP1+1gKbL1YvC1+XpJh9Lv6SDeiPpSyW0YUZYl45eVDKGf7cB0Sb8ouSw MAse30UFTggMibjWSJLL4c1XFgK+zyiWtSIkXA9gfKJiCXkJsH3oFh4ALs9xOSG9hpWT oZ9Q== X-Received: by 10.50.42.165 with SMTP id p5mr615089igl.75.1367672341795; Sat, 04 May 2013 05:59:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.58.52 with HTTP; Sat, 4 May 2013 05:58:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> From: Chris Rees Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 13:58:31 +0100 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: Sat, 04 May 2013 12:59:02 -0000 On 3 March 2013 11:05, Chris Rees wrote: > On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato wrote: >>> Chris Rees wrote >>> in : >>> >>> ut> [dragging it up again!] >>> ut> >>> ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees wrote: >>> ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato wrote: >>> ut> >> Mateusz Guzik wrote >>> ut> >> in <20121118002245.GB15055@dft-labs.eu>: >>> ut> >> >>> ut> >> mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: >>> ut> >> mj> > Chris Rees wrote >>> ut> >> mj> > in < >>> ut> CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: >>> ut> >> mj> > >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler >>> ut> wrote: >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees >>> ut> wrote: >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> >> I'll take a look. >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> > >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> > untested: >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> Based on Eitan's patch, I've tested this one, and documented >>> ut> it in mount(8) too: >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> >>> ut> >> mj> > ut> Does anyone have any suggestions/objections/urge to approve it? >>> ut> >> mj> > >>> ut> >> mj> > Is the original problem due to backgrounding of NFS mount only? If >>> ut> >> mj> > so, implementing prevention of duplicate invocation into mount(8) >>> ut> >> mj> > would be more reasonable, I think. >>> ut> >> mj> > >>> ut> >> mj> >>> ut> >> mj> We have 2 distinct scripts that try to mount same set of filesystems. >>> ut> >> mj> I think this is the real bug here and proposed patches makes it go >>> ut> away in >>> ut> >> mj> an IMHO acceptable way. >>> ut> >> >>> ut> >> I just wanted to make sure if the case is limited to background NFS >>> ut> >> mount or not. >>> ut> >> >>> ut> >> rc.d/mountlate just tries to mount the filesystems that are not >>> ut> >> mounted yet at that time in addition to the "late" ones, not always >>> ut> >> to mount the same set twice. If it is a bug, it is better to simply >>> ut> >> fix -l to exclude not-yet-mounted ones without "late" keyword than >>> ut> >> adding another option. >>> ut> > >>> ut> > I don't think it's a bug as such-- -l option is clearly labelled in >>> ut> > the manpage (emphasis mine): >>> ut> > >>> ut> > When used in conjunction with the -a option, *also* mount those >>> ut> > file systems which are marked as ``late''. >>> ut> > >>> ut> > I think that for POLA and to avoid changing behaviour of an option >>> ut> > that's been there a long time we need the -L option. >>> ut> > >>> ut> > I disagree with Mateusz here-- split operations in rc makes two >>> ut> > scripts necessary; mount and mountlate are two separate operations, >>> ut> > done at different times. >>> ut> >>> ut> Hiroki-san, do you still believe that changing the behaviour of -l is the >>> ut> correct way to go, rather than add a -L option for only late filesystems? >>> ut> (mount -la currently mounts *all* filesystems, you suggested to change to >>> ut> just late). >>> ut> >>> ut> I'd like to fix this, but I want to make sure you're happy with the >>> ut> solution. >>> >>> Sorry for being unresponsive. Can you give me a couple of days to >>> double-check the behavior? >> >> That'd be fantastic, thank you. >> > > Ping? Can anyone please review/approve this patch for me? http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff Chris