[BusyBox] Joy and Compatibility

[Jason Schoon]

Totally lost here.  Are you saying a device and/or mountpoint should
not be allowed to be mounted multiple times?  That is very much
allowed and desired in many cases.


On 7/26/05, busybox at rich-paul.net <busybox at rich-paul.net> wrote:
> 
> I use Gentoo Linux, and have been playing with the bootstrap process a
> bit ... several times, when I've been experimenting or tweaking, I've
> accidentally left proc mounted and exec'd init.  When Gentoo's boot
> scripts fail to mount proc, it results in an unceremonious reboot.  None
> of this, of course is your problem.
> 
> But then today, I noticed that I had a tmpfs mounted on /dev, and a
> second tmpfs mounted on top of it.
> 
> This made me wonder if there would be any value to adding a switch
> that would request an idempotent semantic from mount, e.g.
>         if (already_mounted())
>                 exit(0);
>         else if (then_mount_the_silly_thing())
>                 exit(0);
>         else
>                 exit(1);
> 
> It seems much cleaner to me than either adding logic to the init scripts
> to test before running mount or grepping mount's error message to try to
> determine why it failed.
> 
> But there is one drawback to the scheme:  util-linux doesn't have it.
> Not a problem for me, I haven't found any situation that busy-mount
> can't handle, but I figured I should check before submitting an
> incompatable feature.
> 
> In a similar vein, I've noticed that busy-mount doesn't grok --move or
> --bind, and util-mount doesn't grok -omove or -obind.  So I thought I
> might clean up my Kompatablity Karma by explaining --move and --bind to
> busy-mount.
> 
> Anyway, let me know what you think.
> 
> Regards,
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Don't blame me, I voted libertarian.
> http://radical-centrist.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at mail.busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 
> 
>