Command `mount -a` causing repeated mounts

Denys Vlasenko vda.linux at
Thu Dec 10 20:35:53 UTC 2009

On Wednesday 09 December 2009 08:54, Michael Abbott wrote:
> I guess util-linux is the reference, and it's disappointing to see that 
> util-linux mount doesn't also filter single mounts.  It's a bit nasty to 
> see this commented out in our code:

Why? It does not consume a single byte in the resulting binary.

> presumably we should either implement  
> it anyway or remove the code.  (I'm talking about lines 2053 to 2070 of 
> util-linux/mount.c, of course.)  I think I'm agnostic either way.

If/when upstream mount will implement that, yes, then
we should uncomment it.

> My other thought is that the error message should be filtered on the 
> verbose flag, which is what util-linux does.  Here is a patch for that:

Applied, thanks.

BTW, did you actually tested that it works for you now?

> Do you have any feeling for when there will be a 1.15.3 release?  Version 
> .2 has suddenly acquired a lot of patches!

This weekend?

> A note on the patch directory ( 
> There is no way to tell what order the patches need to be applied, perhaps 
> there ought to be a sequence number after the version number?  Also, there 
> is no description on each patch of what it does: it would really help, if 
> nothing else, to add the associated commit message to the patch, or the 
> appropriate snippet from the e-mail that generated it.
> Of course, mostly the patches don't overlap, so maybe my query about 
> sequence number is immaterial.  However another strange note is that every 
> time a new patch is added the "Last modified" date updates for all patches 
> (to the same date), so it's hard for me to spot which ones are new (and of 
> course, if the date was sensible, I could use that for ordering).

I do not plan to pile up so many patches that these considerations are important.
If you ask these questions, it means it's definitely time for 1.15.3  :)


More information about the busybox mailing list