https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13991
Wayne Davison <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Wayne Davison <[email protected]> --- Yeah, the behavior when recursing back up out of a mount dir into a dir that is a part of a prior top-dir's tree is not handled right at all. Your attached test case was a nice help for testing that (though I just used bind mounts from dirs under /dev/shm instead of creating LVM mounts). I added some code to the delete_in_dir() function to make it keep track of the device values properly and committed it to git. As for the initial report, the -x option is documented as halting deletions under a mounted dir on the receiving side, so that is how it is supposed to work. If you want a different behavior you have several options: You might be able to use --no-x -M-x (on a pull) or -x -M-no-x (on a push) if you want -x on just the sending side. However, I have not tried that (and a local copy would need some kind of remote-shell usage so that the 2 sides can a different options, which the support/lsh script is useful in supporting). A better approach might be to parse the contents of /proc/mounts and turn mount points into filter rules. You then have full control over which dirs you want to exclude, hide, or protect with no guessing. You can even put rules into per-dir filter files if the client and sender side need different rules (and one side may not know what the other side needs). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
