[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <006a01c7ebff$709354c0$51b9fe40$@com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:47:52 -0700
From: "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>
To: "'Trond Myklebust'" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
"'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "'Frank van Maarseveen'" <frankvm@...nkvm.com>,
"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
This patch fixes the problem for me, thanks.
Is this patch changing the behavior of "sharecache" to
"try-to-share-cache-if-possible", or adding a third behavior? If the user
explicitly asks for "-o sharecache", does he get an error back if the mount
options mismatch?
> The best I can do given the constraints appears to be to have the
> kernel first look for a superblock that matches both the fsid and the
> user-specified mount options, and then spawn off a new superblock if
> that search fails. The attached patch does just that.
>
> Note that this is not the same as specifying nosharecache everywhere
> since nosharecache will never attempt to match an existing superblock.
>
> Finally, for the record: I still feel very uncomfortable about not
> being able to report the state of the client setup back to the sysadmin.
> AFAIK, the only way to do so is to stat the mountpoints, and compare
> the device ids.
>
> Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists