Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think the shared superblock approach is the right one, but I'm a
> little concerned that there would now be different behavior for fscache
> and non-cached setups. Not sure of any better idea though.
The behaviour varies a bit anyway because there's a cache...
> > The R/O mount flag can be dealt with by moving readonlyness into the
> > vfsmount rather than having it a property of the superblock. The
> > superblock would then be read-only only if all its vfsmounts are also
> > read-only.
>
> Given that, how many connection parameters are there that are likely to
> actually differ on the same client, talking to the same server? Really?
I don't have figures on that, but I do know people have complained about it
for non-cached conditions.
> You could store the table in a NIS map, for example, and a udev rule or
> similar could trigger to load it later.
My point was meant to be that the presence and coverage of a cache is more
likely to reflect the client machine than would the NIS map for the NFS
automounts. You wouldn't necessarily want to store this table in NIS.
David
--
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]
