(fwd) busybox mount -a fix.

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 25 June 2006 12:47 am, Paul Fox wrote:
> why are you inventing new behavior for the mount exit code?  granted,
> it's odd behavior, and perhaps gratuitous on the part of the original
> author, but i see no point in changing it arbitrarily.

Or I can just do 0 for success and nonzero for failure, which is pretty 
standard everywhere, and is also what it's currently doing.  The rest is just 
passing back extra information which can be trivially ignored.

>  > So you want to support bits 32 and 64, but not bits 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16? 
>  > Why do bits 32 and 64 make sense in isolation?
>
> i think it would be great to support all 7.

I don't.  Those return codes aren't even standardized as far as BSD:
http://www.hmug.org/man/8/mount.php

This is something util-linux dreamed up, and I was unaware we were going for 
bug for bug compatability with them rather than functional compatability.  (A 
return code for user interrupt?  Why?  And _how_ do you have a return code 
for out of memory, the oom killer kills your program unless you've exhausted 
the virtual address space which is kind of hard for something like mount to 
do, unless you're talking about adding special nommu support to mount which 
it doesn't otherwise need...)

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.