From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38039 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753760Ab2CIOWR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 09:22:17 -0500 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF75B8FFDD for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:22:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:22:16 +0100 From: Petr Uzel To: util-linux Subject: Re: mount -f regression in v2.21's new-mount Message-ID: <20120309142216.GA7991@foxbat.suse.cz> References: <20120309105304.GF17711@x2.net.home> <5fde29ffbccb41cf5eb3a286c2f7e954@quantum.linuxfromscratch.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy" In-Reply-To: <5fde29ffbccb41cf5eb3a286c2f7e954@quantum.linuxfromscratch.org> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:30:02AM -0700, Matthew Burgess wrote: >=20 > Thanks! Is there a consensus opinion on whether users should be > using a regular mtab or a symlink to /proc/self/mountinfo? I've seen a couple of quite nasty bugs with regular mtab (caused by the fact that /etc/mtab got out of sync with /proc/self/mounts) so I'd recommend to avoid regular /etc/mtab wherever possible. My 2c, Petr -- Petr Uzel IRC: ptr_uzl @ freenode --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9aEhgACgkQnZxG0T6qDD3xcwCdGzjcZxpFcJeIZ+UNqxOxRbU4 c/YAn3911QfzIrK07XNf6hFI6e6rGRsO =jFxw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--