On 10/28/2010 02:58 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> Chuck, >> >> I'm a bit concern about this patch.... >> >> I'm asking myself who is going care how remounts update >> /etc/mtab and what mode is used. > > Someone who has done a remount and found that it doesn't behave as they expect. > I've handled bug reports like this. When customers want to see existing > documentation of strange behavior, it's pretty important to have something to > point them to. Documentation is the first thing I'm asked for by customers > and system engineers who encounter weird NFS behavior. Documentation is great! I too get numerous requests for documentation. That's why I think are the first 3 paragraphs in "THE REMOUNT OPTION" is perfect! Well written and to the point... Its the rest of the section I don't think we needed... that's all... > >> I just thinking that type of info >> adds a lot verbiage that nobody really care about. > > Don't you think that's a bit harsh and even disrespectful? By no means... whatsoever... I was just being honest... maybe a bit too brutally... ;-) My apologies if it came off in that manner... > What criteria do you use to decide that "no-one cares"? I can't image anybody caring about how the inners of /etc/mtab are being maintained on an NFS umount... As long as the unmount works, that's all they care about... > > This patch documents very confusing behavior that is not documented anywhere else. > It's not documented elsewhere because other file systems don't have a dependency > on /etc/mtab as we have. This also documents why replacing /etc/mtab with > /proc/mounts will cause some fuzzy NFS umount behavior (which is exactly the documentation you were looking for last week). > > The fact that it took me so long to figure out is evidence enough that this is > not obvious and needs to be written down somewhere. Where else should we document > behavior that is related to /etc/fstab and mount(8), and is NFS specific? How about the NFS FAQ? All I'm saying is that type of details information (how mtab is managed) is not useful to a system admin trying figure out how to use remount on an NFS file system... So I think its a waste to put in the man page... > >> Plus why are >> we documenting something (/etc/mtab) that will be going >> away as soon as humanly possible? > > Do you have a schedule for this? I've talked very recently with Karel, > and libmount is not even ready to be published. The work to integrate > libmount into every mount subcommand sounds like it could be a ways in > the future. (Karel and I even discussed me doing this work for mount.nfs). No I don't... but it can come soon enough... IMHO... Cool... Karel is a good guy to work with... > > I expect we will have a dependence on /etc/mtab for a while yet. And, > it's pretty easy to change these docs once we've transitioned. > >> Basically I'm saying the entire "Unmounting after a remount" >> section is not needed. Only the 3 paragraphs in "THE REMOUNT OPTION" >> section are needed IMHO... > > > I'll consider recrafting it, but this is important and confusing > behavior that must be documented. We can argue about how the information > is presented, but just throwing it all out and ignoring it is not an option. > Good... All I'm saying make the it concise and to the point so its useful to a system admin... Like the first 3 paragraphs are... And maybe I'm wrong... but... I just don't think an system admin really cares what happens to the mtab after a umount of a remounted mount point... As long as the unmount works... they are happy... again... IMHO... steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
