Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:26:26 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_mount.c Message-ID: <20080218142626.GI30694@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <86y79i5syt.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <200802141704.m1EH4VL4099009@repoman.freebsd.org> <86y79i5syt.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:50:34PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > Log: > > In the new order of things dictated by nmount(2), a read-only mount > > is to be requested via a "ro" option. At the same time, MNT_RDONLY > > is gradually becoming an indicator of the current state of the FS > > instead of a command flag. Today passing MNT_RDONLY alone to the > > kernel's mount machinery will lead to various glitches. (See the > > PRs for examples.) > > > > Therefore mount the root FS with a "ro" option instead of the > > MNT_RDONLY flag. (Note that MNT_RDONLY still is added to the mount > > flags internally, by vfs_donmount(), if "ro" was specified.) > > Can you guarantee that this will not f*** up the bootp / dhcp + nfsroot > case? There are dragons in that code which were decidedly not funny to > track down and fix. Indeed; or, as a Russian proverb has it, "Just don't touch the sh*t, and it won't stink". :-) But, fortunately, I've just had a chance to test this WRT the NFS_ROOT case. Thank Daemon, that code path is much clearer now than it used to be in the 4.4BSD days. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080218142626.GI30694>