| 1 |
William Hubbs posted on Wed, 05 Aug 2015 10:26:33 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> It isn't localmount that would have the issue, but mount.* because they |
| 4 |
> are lexically after localmount, so you would end up with localmount |
| 5 |
> doing a mount -a then mount.* coming later trying to mount file systems |
| 6 |
> again that were mounted by localmount. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
But if localmount is a wrapper, then it pulls them in and they're already |
| 9 |
started (if they'll mount), just like they are now. You'd just have to |
| 10 |
have it still return success even if one of the wrapped mounts fails, in |
| 11 |
ordered to maintain compatibility. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So coming later won't be a problem, if they're wrapped by localmount, |
| 14 |
because it will have already started them anyway, so they'll already be |
| 15 |
detected as started. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Meanwhile, if localmount is not made a wrapper but continues to be mount |
| 18 |
-a, then you will indeed need logic in the individual mounts to see if |
| 19 |
they're already mounted, but a robust system will need that in any case, |
| 20 |
because there's simply too many reasons, including manual mounting, that |
| 21 |
they're already mounted. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 25 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 26 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives