Mike Waychison wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something, implementing this as a seperate filesystem > type still has the appropriate atomicity guarantees as long as the VFS > support complex expiry, whereby userspace would tag submounts as being > part of the overall expiry for a base mountpoint. > It would, but it seems like a vastly more invasive change to the VFS than ought to be necessary. -hpa - 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/
References:
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsH. Peter Anvin
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsIan Kent
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofsviro
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsMike Waychison
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsH. Peter Anvin
- Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern AutofsMike Waychison
- Prev by Date: Re: PATCH 1/2: Make gotoxy & siblings use unsigned variables
- Next by Date: Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
- Previous by thread: Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
- Next by thread: RE: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]