Re: [Devil-linux-develop] [PATCH] To fix mount issue with mounting bootcd.iso off disk/usb drive

[Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote on 09.05.2004 01:42 MET:

> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
> 
>> Tim Tait wrote on 08.05.2004 21:15 MET:
>>
>>> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Tait wrote on 08.05.2004 19:13 MET:
>>>>
>>>>> Friedrich Lobenstock wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you change the original mount and add the options 
>>>>>> "ro,noatime"
>>>>>> there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just tried it with my local CD-Rom drive to make sure iso9660 
>>>>>> accepts the
>>>>>> "noatime" option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # mount /dev/cdrom /mnt/ -o ro,noatime # mount | grep /mnt 
>>>>>> /dev/sr0 on /mnt
>>>>>> type iso9660 (ro,noatime)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that mounting it read only from the beginning would break 
>>>>> the live-update feature, no?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then your patch should also break it too, shouldn't it? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, because I remount it read-only after the update check is finished 
>>> - ie it will have already copied bootcd.iso.new (if it exists) to 
>>> bootcd.iso, and thus is ready to continue with the normal mount 
>>> sequence, which only requires read access.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, were did I have my head.
>>
>>
>>>>> Tho I suppose if is bootcd.iso.new is detected, it could be 
>>>>> remounted rw at
>>>>> that time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you please test that and add the necessary remount's there?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can, though it will mean 2 remounts - one to make it rw for update, 
>>> then another to make ro when update is done.
>>
>>
>>
>> The current situation is using the minimal amount of mount commands.
>> But for sake of cleaner implementation, meaning in the normal case we 
>> don't need to run two mounts, I think the other way is better. 
>> Updating is a special case anyway and were you have to take special 
>> meassures anyway. How about factoring out the update stuff into 
>> another file to make the mount_cdrom more readable again?
>>
>> BTW while looking at the update code I think we should also 
>> rename/move the /mnt/DEVIL-LINUX file so we know from which version to 
>> which we are updating. Heiko!?
> 
> 
> I thought we don't need this, because when the configuration gets 
> upgraded, then the Admin sees anyway from where to where.
> On the other hand, you don't really "see" the upgrade, since the system 
> replaces the files and continues the boot process where it then replaces 
> the initrd and reboots again....

But if the file DEVIL-LINUX.old is there it is easier to check which the old 
version was later. Eg. just before the login:
    "System updated from version xy to xz"

Also think of debugging update problems.


-- 
MfG / Regards
Friedrich Lobenstock
____________________________________________________________________
Friedrich Lobenstock                       Linux Services Lobenstock
URL: http://www.lsl.at/                         Email: fl...@fl...
____________________________________________________________________