From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 14:11:53 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04E616A400; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [64.129.166.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEEC13C47E; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l22EBqq5012516; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:11:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <45E830A8.8020104@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:11:52 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070204) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <00cb01c75c5b$4205e390$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <45E82660.4030107@freebsd.org> <008101c75cd1$42a4df10$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <008101c75cd1$42a4df10$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/2697/Fri Mar 2 06:02:13 2007 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (2006-10-03) on mh1.centtech.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysinstall creates corrupt filesystems after repartitioning X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:11:54 -0000 On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: >> I don't know about the fs corruption, but the double mounts is >> something you asked it to do (maybe unknowingly). When you added >> that partition, one of the options is to mount it. > > Clearly an easy work around in that case then but personally > I would expect a mount to a directory already in use by another > mount point to fail. Taking even further a mount to a directory > that is not actually empty should fail. IIRC this is how solaris > behaves but its been a while. > > Checking for an empty target directory certainly makes sence to > me is there some case where it would be desirable to allow this > to happen? If so maybe a force flag should created without which > a mount to a none empty dir would fail. Either way allowing > multiple mounts to the same location is bound to cause all manor > of confusion and should be prevented. Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common, and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or NFS over it if you detect the one you want. I think this comes down to: if it hurts, stop doing it. :) Maybe sysinstall should warn you that you are double mounting, but I don't want it to stop letting me do it. Eric