On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:51:44PM +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote:
--- src/df.c.orig 2014-10-27 12:14:39.633167418 -0400 +++ src/df.c 2014-10-27 13:16:54.524752800 -0400 @@ -631,6 +631,10 @@ /* Stat failed - add ME to be able to complain about it later. */ buf.st_dev = me->me_dev; } + else if (me->me_remote) + { + /* ignore duplicate network mounts */ + } else { /* If we've already seen this device... */Still not convinced about that hunk.
I'm increasingly coming to the position that this is something that should basically be opaque to the client. The two exports have independent access control policies, and from the user's perspective are two different "things". The admin on the client system treats them as different, and doesn't necessarily have any insight into how the server is configured. Suppressing one as a duplicate is probably more confusing than helpful. And if the server is reconfigured, the you'll suddenly have two entries in df rather than one, even though nothing on the client side has changed. Though it would complicate things even more, maybe a reasonable heuristic would be to suppress remote mounts only if the remote path is a duplicate?
Mike Stone -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
