Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression

On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 15:12 +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:

> IMHO I'd only consider returning EBUSY when trying to mount _exactly_
> the same directory with different flags, not for arbitrary subtrees. The
> client should preferably not be bothered with server side disk
> partitioning (at least not beyond the obvious such as df output).

That is utterly inconsistent and confusing too.

If you have a filesystem "/foo" exported on the server "remote", then
why should

        mount -oro remote:/foo
        mount -orw remote:/foo/a

be allowed, but

        mount -oro remote:/foo
        mount -orw remote:/foo

be forbidden? The caching problems are the same. Telling the admin that
one is safe and the other is not, is just messing with his mind.

Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Frank van Maarseveen <[email protected]>

• References:
  • recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: "Hua Zhong" <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
    • From: Frank van Maarseveen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] trivial - constify sched.h
• Previous by thread: Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
• Next by thread: Re: recent nfs change causes autofs regression
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]