Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 22:40:47 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: More nits Message-ID: <199511022140.WAA07693@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199511021412.GAA02819@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Nov 2, 95 06:12:15 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As David Greenman wrote: > > Okay, I think the solution is starting to become clear. Basically, mount > should return a failure code only in the case of it failing to mount a > filesystem because it is dirty... > Will this make people happy? Hmm, but what about people that need the CD since they prefer to run their /usr from it? (Or from an NFS mount, FWIW.) I think this was Rod's entire idea to include things like cd9660 into the list of `crucial' file systems. It was infact crucial for him at AAC, but it ain't for most people outside. However, as John Polstra did already note, you could achieve the very same effect (as your proposal) by making only failing ufs mounts fatal, and don't care for the exit status of mount(8) for things like cd9660. (This would be my favorite for 2.1 anyway, to avoid annoying too many innocent users.) In the long run, i think an ``optional'' clause has its merits: it allows the local system administrator for full flexibility in the decision of which file system is ``crucial'' for him, and which ain't. Nobody else than him will be able to decide this anyway. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511022140.WAA07693>