Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Thomas Hood wrote: Now that I understand it, the patch as provided by R. Ramkumar looks OK to me. (When domount's first argument is bind, the function does a bind mount.) HMH: Can you explain your idea further? What do you envision domount() doing when its first argument is none? It just does what it is doing right now. All it needs to do is accept none as valid, even if it is not listed in /proc/filesystems (it will never be listed there). All of the bind/namespace manipulation functions of mount can be invoked either by using mount --function, or by using mount -t whatever, it will be ignored -o function. Set up a bind mount, and then run mount. Look at how it is reported. It will have the artificial type of none. Mount accepts that syntax to create the mount as well: mount -t none /initial /target -o bind (or, for that matter, -o move, -o rbind, -o after, -o before, -o over..., and I suppose if we ever update our mount, -o make-shared). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, R.Ramkumar wrote: I guess I am mistaken. The feature request was to augment domount so that it could allow calls for bind mounts from init functions such as mountvirtfs. Correct me if I am wrong, but afaik these don't even need an entry in /etc/fstab (domount at best takes options from there if an entry exists). You're correct, I did not understand the report fully. As for me... I was very confused. Sorry! Thomas, what do you think? mount will tell us if -t none is not what it wants, and it is exactly what it wants for --bind, --move, --make-shared (or their alternative fstab-friendly hacks of -obind, -omove...). Now that I understand it, the patch as provided by R. Ramkumar looks OK to me. (When domount's first argument is bind, the function does a bind mount.) HMH: Can you explain your idea further? What do you envision domount() doing when its first argument is none? -- Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: It just does what it is doing right now. All it needs to do is accept none as valid, even if it is not listed in /proc/filesystems (it will never be listed there). Ah, yes, good thinking: that is better than special casing bind. -- Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now that I understand it, the patch as provided by R. Ramkumar looks OK to me. (When domount's first argument is bind, the function does a bind mount.) Not completely OK though :) , as I mentioned in the mail in which I sent the patch. `mountpoint` seems to have problems recognizing bind mounts, is this the intended behaviour, or is it a bug? Ramkumar. -- WARN_(accel)(msg null; should hang here to be win compatible\n); -- WINE source code -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
In fact, you can leave the filesystem type as none and it should work: /thing/to/mount /mnt/mtptnonebind 0 0 Which is clean and nice. I guess, we shouldn't even tag this wontfix, but rather close it as fixed. The functionality is there already. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353943: [Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Processed: wontfix
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, R.Ramkumar wrote: I guess I am mistaken. The feature request was to augment domount so that it could allow calls for bind mounts from init functions such as mountvirtfs. Correct me if I am wrong, but afaik these don't even need an entry in /etc/fstab (domount at best takes options from there if an entry exists). You're correct, I did not understand the report fully. The currently distributed mountdevsubfs/mountvirtfs do not use bind mounts, but the local admin might need them in their custom init scripts - mount*fs are after all config files. The use case presented, as described in the original bug report, is to change the init script mountdevsubfs.sh, which mounts a tmpfs instance at /dev/shm to a shared instance between /dev/shm and /tmp, using bind mounts. That would be the reply to Thomas's why? request. Very well, looking at where domount() is used, it looks sane to allow for some sort of messing around with bind mounts. Actally, with namespaces in general. That's already supported in a kludgy way (see Thomas' reply). We could support a filesystem type of none, which would bring support to non-kludge status, as that's how mount(8) does it. Thomas, what do you think? mount will tell us if -t none is not what it wants, and it is exactly what it wants for --bind, --move, --make-shared (or their alternative fstab-friendly hacks of -obind, -omove...). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
