Re: [POLL] mount: sync or async?
- From: Grégory SCHMITT <gy.schmitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: emelfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:02:03 +0200
----- Original Message -----
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:18:33 +1000
> De: <tpgww@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> À: emelfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sujet: Re: [POLL] mount: sync or async?
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:08:19 +0200
> Grégory SCHMITT <gy.schmitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > My feeling is that before, mount was
> > > > waiting for the device to probe the disc (which can take a few
> > > > seconds depending on the performance of your optical drive).
> > > > Now, mount doesn't wait as long for the disc to be probed and
> > > > exits quickly.
> > > I can't think why synchronous operation of a mount command would
> > > make a difference. The command should still just do what it does.
> >
> > Well, as I said in my post, it's mostly my feeling only... I clearly
> > understand your point, as I thought myself it doesn't make sense at
> > all for the mount command to fail when asynchronous and succeed when
> > synchronous.
> >
> > I think I can run some extra testing on it; I'll get a svn copy and
> > build it with different options. Could you tell me what file I
> > should modify to switch between sync and async ?
> .../src/utils/e2_menu.c
> in function _e2_menu_mount_cb() at line 734
OK, thanks. Problem solved, it wasn't related to emelfm2, but to hal -
there's something in hal that doesn't detect when devices are mounted
if the wait is too long. I'll have to investigate.
--
Grégory SCHMITT <mailto:gy.schmitt@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Users can unsubscribe from the list by sending email to
emelfm2-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field or by
logging into the web interface.
Other related posts:
