mail archive of the barebox mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sascha Hauer <sha@pengutronix.de>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Regression in automount between 2021.07.0 and 2022.05.0
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:53:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220714075335.GG23482@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220712164510.efaa3vw4hwabpkza@pengutronix.de>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 06:45:10PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> while updating barebox from 2021.07.0 to 2022.05.0 I hit a regression:
> 
> The behaviour of 2022.05.0 looks as follows:
> 
> 	bootloader: automount -d /mnt/usbstorage 'usb && if [ -e /dev/disk0.0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0.0 /mnt/usbstorage; elif [ -e /dev/disk0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0 /mnt/usbstorage; fi'
> 	bootloader: ls /mnt/usbstorage/
> 
> Without an USB drive this hangs until the watchdog resets the board. I
> guess the problem is that the automount script is called again and again
> because nothing was mounted.

I just tried 2021.07.0 and the behaviour seems to be the same. I don't
think it's a regression.

automount -d /mnt/foo true
ls /mnt/foo

makes barebox hang. That shouldn't happen of course.

> 
> I can workaround that problem by doing:
> 
> 	bootloader: automount -d /mnt/usbstorage 'usb && if [ -e /dev/disk0.0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0.0 /mnt/usbstorage; elif [ -e /dev/disk0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0 /mnt/usbstorage; else false; fi'
> 	bootloader: ls /mnt/usbstorage/
> 	running automount command 'usb && if [ -e /dev/disk0.0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0.0 /mnt/usbstorage; elif [ -e /dev/disk0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0 /mnt/usbstorage; else false; fi' failed
> 	ls: /mnt/usbstorage/: No such device
> 	running automount command 'usb && if [ -e /dev/disk0.0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0.0 /mnt/usbstorage; elif [ -e /dev/disk0 ]; then mount /dev/disk0 /mnt/usbstorage; else false; fi' failed
> 
> but there is still something non-optimal.
> 
> I can look into that, but I'm not entirely sure what the right behaviour
> is.
> 
> Should a command that doesn't mount something considered to have failed?
> (I think that's how it was with 2021.07.0.)

That sounds promising.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-14  7:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-12 16:45 Uwe Kleine-König
2022-07-14  7:53 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2022-07-14 16:45   ` Uwe Kleine-König

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220714075335.GG23482@pengutronix.de \
    --to=sha@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox