Hello folks, Thanks kindly -- and my apologies for picking this up after a while; fell sick here...
A few questions: -- If I have multiple drives, do I modify the script to have multiple efi2, efi3, ..., efiX ? -- it seems that the script above privileges /boot/efi over /boot/efi2 -- in this case, if /boot/efi becomes corrupted, won't this just copy the errors to /boot/efi2 and thus destroy it as well, on the next run? Cheers! On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:12 PM Tim Woodall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, Florent Rougon wrote: > > > Le 20/09/2024, Tim Woodall <[email protected]> a écrit: > > > >> Because the script will abort after the mount fails. > >> > >> root@dirac:~# cat test.sh > >> #!/bin/bash > >> > >> set -e > >> > >> mount /boot/efi2 > >> > >> echo "do important stuff" > >> > >> root@dirac:~# ./test.sh > >> mount: /boot/efi2: /dev/sda2 already mounted on /boot/efi2. > >> dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount system call. > >> > >> > >> Note that do important stuff is never reached. > > > > That's interesting because my system doesn't behave the same. I had of > > course checked, before writing my first message, that 'mount /boot/efi2' > > returns exit status 0 even when /boot/efi2 is already mounted. With your > > script (called foo.sh here), here is what I get: > > > > # mount | grep efi2 > > /dev/sda1 on /boot/efi2 type vfat > > (rw,relatime,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,utf8,errors=remount-ro) > > # /tmp/foo.sh > > do important stuff > > # mount | grep efi2 > > /dev/sda1 on /boot/efi2 type vfat > > (rw,relatime,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,utf8,errors=remount-ro) > > /dev/sda1 on /boot/efi2 type vfat > > (rw,relatime,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,utf8,errors=remount-ro) > > # > > > > Every invocation adds a new, duplicate entry in the output of 'mount'. > > > > This is Debian sid amd64; /usr/bin/mount is from 'mount' package version > > 2.40.2-8. > > > > That's very interesting and looks like it's probably a kernel change. > > Tim. -- Boyan Penkov
