From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17246 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753762AbaAIQVW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:21:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:21:18 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: Stanislav Brabec Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: mount: "nofail" and already mounted devices? Message-ID: <20140109162118.GE7516@x2.net.home> References: <1389203741.8841.31.camel@oct.suse.cz> <20140109100254.GD7516@x2.net.home> <1389282714.8841.109.camel@oct.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1389282714.8841.109.camel@oct.suse.cz> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:51:54PM +0100, Stanislav Brabec wrote: > Karel Zak wrote: > The new behavior could simplify common situation and also prevent a > race: > if the device is not yet mounted > mount it > do the work It would be enough to add extra return code for EBUSY (which is probably a good idea for all scenarios). > > > - Make possible to use "-a" with further arguments. > > > > mount -a /foo /bar [...] > > > > Right? > > Well, it sounds interesting as well, but I was thinking about > (conflicting): > mount -a /dev/device /mountpoint It's new feature, so we can be pretty strict about it mount -a [ ..] and do not support "mount -a ". If you need something more advanced then you have to compose a script. Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com