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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
