Question about "mount" command (continued)

Question about "mount" command (continued)

[Pavel Fedin]

  Hello there! I moved to a new job so my old email archive is lost. I 
can't quote the whole discussion, here is an original letter (found in 
the list archive):
  --- cut ---
    Also i would like to ask someone who is responsible for "mount" tool.
I'd suggest to modify it in order to support several lines in fstab with
the same device and mount points but different filesystems and options.
   For example:
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom udf,iso9660 user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r 0 0
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom hfsplus user,noauto,nls=koi8-r 0 0
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom hfs user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=10007 0 0
   Currently mount will stop at the first line and produce an error if
the filesystem is not udf or iso (in the example). It will ignore the
following lines.
   This would greatly improve handling of removable devices. Is there
something (standards for example) which could prevent from this
implementation?
  --- cut ---
  There was a suggestion to unify all the arguments in order to be able 
to write something like:
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom hfsplus,hfs,udf,iso9660 
user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=10007 0 0
  But there is one flaw. Let's take a floppy drive as an example, where 
Mac or Windows diskettes can be read. We could write:
/dev/floppy /mnt/floppy hfs,vfat 
user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=10007 0 0
  But there is a problem. Mac diskettes use different codepage from 
Windows diskettes (they use 866). This leads to a problem. So the 
solution could be to write two lines instead of one:
/dev/floppy /mnt/floppy vfat user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=866 0 0
/dev/floppy /mnt/floppy hfs user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=10007 0 0
  Also i would suggest to change argument parsing policy for filesystems 
a bit. I suggest to silently ignore unknown arguments instead of 
producing an error. This would make autofs much more usable (i would be 
able to specify the whole set of needed arguments for all possible 
filesystems). For example something like:
/dev/hdd4 /mnt/zip ext2fs,vfat user,noauto,iocharset=koi8-r,codepage=866 0 0
  will not work when ext2 cartridge is inserted because ext2fs doesn't 
understand "iocharset" and "codepage" and will give an error. Removing 
these two options produces disadvantage when reading FAT cartridge.
  This would also fix problem with "user,noauto" for smbfs automatically 
(i presented the patch earlier but it was rejected because "there's no 
need to pollute the kernel with dummy arguments, smbmount should be 
fixed instead").

  Kind regards

Re: Question about "mount" command (continued)

[Pavel Fedin]

Pavel Fedin wrote:
>  Hello there! I moved to a new job so my old email archive is lost. I 
> can't quote the whole discussion, here is an original letter (found in 
> the list archive):

  Still see no reply. Is there noone interested? Or may be i just should 
throw in a patch?
  I just want to save my time a bit in order not to do the work which 
would be rejected (like with previous smbfs fix).

-- 
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin

Re: Question about "mount" command (continued)

[Pavel Fedin]

Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> You probably aren't getting much of a response as fsdevel is kernel
> list and mount is a user-land app.  The linux version of mount is
> maintained as part of the util-linux package.   It's maintained on
> kernel.org by  Adrian Bunk <bunk __at__ stusta __dot__ de>.  You may
> have better luck contacting him directly, I think there is also a
> mailing list just for util-linux, but I could be mistaken.

  Yes, i know, i just post here because this question has close 
relationship to vfs operation in general and, besides, there's a second 
part in the message with question about changing behavour of all 
filesystems so that they would ignore unknown arguments rather than 
raise an error and refuse to mount.
  The result i would like to achieve can be obtained in several ways, so 
i ask which parts should be implemented in kernel space and which ones 
in user space.
  I ask this because two of my patches didn't follow some policies and 
were rejected. I wouldn't like to produce more bad work.

-- 
Kind regards,
Pavel Fedin