Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 11:05:07 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" <freebsd-rc@freebsd.org>, Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mountlate being too mount-happy Message-ID: <CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-siiSyeg%2BqUdO9U2Et%2Bm=WOJ2pp9gWYQY4_8MW18M_eA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20121118.150935.240651183336258002.hrs@allbsd.org> <CADLo838LPHdd9eooyODket%2BW5ef2eHF0uSXaqsFAs%2Bw0Dtk87A@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_ACAtUvqZYmv4A9Os9rTtxxdLK8e6n6YSrYhYJbiRk-w@mail.gmail.com> <20130123.061642.1790268617280808873.hrs@allbsd.org> <CADLo83-siiSyeg%2BqUdO9U2Et%2Bm=WOJ2pp9gWYQY4_8MW18M_eA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote >> in <CADLo83_ACAtUvqZYmv4A9Os9rTtxxdLK8e6n6YSrYhYJbiRk-w@mail.gmail.com>: >> >> ut> [dragging it up again!] >> ut> >> ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >> ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: >> ut> >> Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> 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 <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote >> ut> >> mj> > in < >> ut> CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A@mail.gmail.com>: >> ut> >> mj> > >> ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> >> ut> wrote: >> ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> >> 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? :) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-35R7=xk0rCmooV8Btm3m5s%2BuPvZV12mWYE1uu2Wh3FQ>