From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 15 22:12:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A642F10 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:12:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76C28FC1D for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id je9so2161314bkc.13 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:12:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=IZoi10xJOakBhpYmtz1tcCPUf5C5Hmq6SFcu2/Ye0uw=; b=BjWgeOKlLzjHYv5HjJ5uT7abolGE3A0I2NhgWxeCTquNfMOCmYqddm8eBCJF1ZmY+C xRlbPO6ftjRZCFNJmLFmFrnhu7up87G7UsYWK1dF/HPhaod8t4a1vybFbW8fNId4TLf+ VYEVX0P4F2f86yCuLVA5XsgO/aUfWg0ClfUogyxfcbIa9Dvn4bBYafiohzKSjIivTg6t PQN7uBZlEqNUIkqgwkdHyi0kxaGHu/JklLZYhSTdW6calq//DCVG9Ioa79EbQib+cSXN FORBh+J5r85tEvkjuY6tuzJk8CLZvudCkBpk+Kk1DwaZJdNzwKvDm+dBxJq+6EmJc04m G0ZQ== Received: by 10.205.120.3 with SMTP id fw3mr4379529bkc.40.1355609550559; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:12:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.167.71 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:12:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1F93E0D525B946B88405EC4203385E0A@multiplay.co.uk> References: <6A58ADA440454E5889DBA6D2D9C56180@multiplay.co.uk> <20121215091424.GS71906@kib.kiev.ua> <1F93E0D525B946B88405EC4203385E0A@multiplay.co.uk> From: Chris Rees Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:12:00 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Adding dependency on mountlate to mountd To: Steven Hartland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" 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, 15 Dec 2012 22:12:32 -0000 On 15 December 2012 20:09, Steven Hartland wrote: > ---- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Chris Rees On 15 Dec 2012 09:14, "Konstantin Belousov" >> wrote: >> > It cannot be fine. It breaks local NFS mounts. >> >> Given that we can't have both, but we can have nullfs and thus solve this >> problem. >> Is there something that local NFS mounts can do that nullfs won't? > > > Using local NFS mounts seems a bit of strange thing to do, whats the > reason for the requirement for these? > > Wouldnt nullfs mounts replace this requirement and perform better? Here's an idea, how about in the mountlate script, we pass SIGHUP to mountd at the end (or simply restart it, but that'd be slower)? This would cover your use case and Kostik's example too. Chris