On 20 Jan 2016 11:28, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:24:58PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i've received two requests for the "nofail" option. the doc for the > > option is a bit ... terse ... so it's hard to guess at the overall > > intention. > > man mount: > nofail Do not report errors for this device if it does not exist. > > from my point of view this description is pretty explicit :-) does it mean the device node doesn't exist (ENOENT) ? or does it also accept the node being there, but returning other errors like ENXIO (the driver isn't loaded) or ENOTDIR (bad path) or ENOTBLK (used a bad path like /dev/zero) or ENOMEDIUM (the node & hardware exists, but is not loaded) ? there's probably other errno values you could catch here. surely you agree that "does not exist" does not cover all these cases. or at the very least, it's pretty ambiguous/fuzzy. > > (2) ignore unknown fs types. e.g. when a kernel config/module is missing > > support for the requested filesystem type. so a fstab entry like: > > ..src.. /mnt/foo somefs defaults,nofail > > rather than error out with: > > mount: unknown filesystem type 'somefs' > > it would just issue a warning like it does for other nofail options. > > I'm not sure with this. It's unusual situation when any filesystem is unknown > for libblkid, but it's pretty common that kernel returns EINVAL. This > happen when a kernel config/module is missing, but also if you specify > wrong mount options and in some another situations. I don't think we > want to hide such problems. It's too generic... i think there's a lot going on in this response. let me distill it a bit. if i have a reiserfs that is usable, but i forgot to enable or load the reiserfs kernel driver, should nofail be allowed to skip ? or is this a hard failure ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
