[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12883.1280220521@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:48:41 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add a dentry op to handle automounting rather than abusing follow_link() [ver #2]
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> Is this something others need?
Not as far as I know... I think autofs is the only one doing out-of-kernel
automounting.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided, though...
> Again, the exists vs not yet exists case for paths within indirect
> autofs mounts. At the moment I can just set the flag on all dentrys in
> the autofs fs and return EXDEV for non-empty directories in order to
> return the dentry as a path component. OTOH if the dentry is a mount
> embeded in the path and the mount fails we get a error return.
Seems redundant, but I'd say go with it for now. Maybe we can offload
S_AUTOMOUNT to the dentry.
> I could clear the flag on non-root parent dentrys during mkdir if this
> is needed by others.
I'm not sure that would actually matter, since it would come to
follow_automount() at the same place.
Note that someone who tries to stat() with AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT will cause the call
to d_automount() to be suppressed and will see the negative or non-mounted
directory. That might be okay for you.
David
--
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