mountlate being too mount-happy

[Chris Rees]

On 3 March 2013 11:05, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 21:30, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 January 2013 21:16, Hiroki Sato <hrs at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote
>>>   in <CADLo83_ACAtUvqZYmv4A9Os9rTtxxdLK8e6n6YSrYhYJbiRk-w at mail.gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> ut> [dragging it up again!]
>>> ut>
>>> ut> On 18 November 2012 14:28, Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ut> > On 18 November 2012 06:09, Hiroki Sato <hrs at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> ut> >> Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik at gmail.com> wrote
>>> ut> >> in <20121118002245.GB15055 at dft-labs.eu>:
>>> ut> >>
>>> ut> >> mj> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:43:25AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>>> ut> >> mj> > Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote
>>> ut> >> mj> > in <
>>> ut> CADLo839wqzAPenuQDOVpQ74yjCMkPQNceKpvs_N9XNwMLrkC1A at mail.gmail.com>:
>>> ut> >> mj> >
>>> ut> >> mj> > ut> On 2 November 2012 14:21, Eitan Adler <lists at eitanadler.com>
>>> ut> wrote:
>>> ut> >> mj> > ut> > On 2 November 2012 09:56, Chris Rees <utisoft at 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?

Can anyone please review/approve this patch for me?

http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/mountonlylate.diff

Chris