| Message ID | 20110628121144.0afb228e@notabene.brown (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 06/27/2011 10:11 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:03:20 -0400 Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 06/23/2011 12:09 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 22, 2011, at 5:20 PM, NeilBrown wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:08:25 -0600 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since we are going to adopt libmount for mount.nfs in the near future, would it be better to update libmount instead? >>>> >>>> How near? >>>> >>>> Libmount appears to get signal handling right already (though I haven't >>>> tested it). It blocks all signals rather than catching some of them. >>>> >>>> So switching to libmount would a perfectly reasonably response. However if >>>> that is more than a few weeks away I think I would rather see this fixed up >>>> anyway... >>> >>> We have a libmount-based mount.nfs already in the nfs-utils tree, IIRC. I don't think we yet have a generic plan for switching to installing that one by default. Steve? >> Well a while back I did add the libmount code along with --enable-libmount-mount >> configure flag. This flag has been enabled for a while now in the >> pre release of Fedora 16 so it will on in the release of f16. >> >> Plus I am looking to make a nfs-utils release... I'm in the process of >> clean things up just to do that. So I would be willing to enable the libmount >> code to be on by default. But I am concern not all distros do include >> the libmount code... >> >> Some clarity... If the libmount code is enabled, this patch is not needed? >> > > No it is not ... however it would be nice if the affected code wasn't even > compiled in. > > i.e. which a patch like this, it will not even compile the offending code if > libmount is selected. > > NeilBrown > > > diff --git a/utils/mount/Makefile.am b/utils/mount/Makefile.am > index 056293c..7bc3e2b 100644 > --- a/utils/mount/Makefile.am > +++ b/utils/mount/Makefile.am > @@ -9,11 +9,10 @@ man5_MANS = nfs.man > > sbin_PROGRAMS = mount.nfs > EXTRA_DIST = nfsmount.x $(man8_MANS) $(man5_MANS) > -mount_common = error.c network.c fstab.c token.c \ > +mount_common = error.c network.c token.c \ > parse_opt.c parse_dev.c \ > nfsmount.c nfs4mount.c stropts.c\ > - nfsumount.c \ > - mount_constants.h error.h network.h fstab.h token.h \ > + mount_constants.h error.h network.h token.h \ > parse_opt.h parse_dev.h \ > nfs4_mount.h nfs_mount4.h stropts.h version.h \ > mount_config.h utils.c utils.h > @@ -33,7 +32,8 @@ if CONFIG_LIBMOUNT > mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount_libmount.c > mount_nfs_LDADD += $(LIBMOUNT) > else > -mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount.c > +mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount.c fstab.c nfsumount.c fstab.h > + > endif > > MAINTAINERCLEANFILES = Makefile.in Good point.... I will take both patches... steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/utils/mount/Makefile.am b/utils/mount/Makefile.am index 056293c..7bc3e2b 100644 --- a/utils/mount/Makefile.am +++ b/utils/mount/Makefile.am @@ -9,11 +9,10 @@ man5_MANS = nfs.man sbin_PROGRAMS = mount.nfs EXTRA_DIST = nfsmount.x $(man8_MANS) $(man5_MANS) -mount_common = error.c network.c fstab.c token.c \ +mount_common = error.c network.c token.c \ parse_opt.c parse_dev.c \ nfsmount.c nfs4mount.c stropts.c\ - nfsumount.c \ - mount_constants.h error.h network.h fstab.h token.h \ + mount_constants.h error.h network.h token.h \ parse_opt.h parse_dev.h \ nfs4_mount.h nfs_mount4.h stropts.h version.h \ mount_config.h utils.c utils.h @@ -33,7 +32,8 @@ if CONFIG_LIBMOUNT mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount_libmount.c mount_nfs_LDADD += $(LIBMOUNT) else -mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount.c +mount_nfs_SOURCES += mount.c fstab.c nfsumount.c fstab.h + endif MAINTAINERCLEANFILES = Makefile.in