Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs

[Michael Clark <michael _at_ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/09/04 01:34, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> In many ways this returns to the simplicity of the autofs v3 design 
> where the atomicity constraints where guaranteed by the VFS itself, *as 
> long as* mount traps can be atomically destroyed with umounting the 
> underlying filesystem.

Do we need to revive Tigran's forced unmount patch 'badfs' ala FreeBSD's
deadfs? Although it doesn't guarantee atomic unmount, it could help
a lot with the tendancy to get stuck autofs mounts.

   http://tinyurl.com/2hto8

I've been long waiting for this functionality in mainline.

I wonder if binding badfs over the mountpoint at the beginning of the
potentially lengthy unmount process would improve the atomicity
to userspace. ie although the unmount would proceed in the background,
badfs would have been mounted at that point at the start of the process
- mounts are atomic no?

~mc

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