On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 12:49 +0200, Lukas Kolbe wrote: > Hi Ian! > > > > Congratulations Lucas you've managed to create an autofs map that the > > current autofs4 kernel module can't handle, well done. > > D'Oh! > > > I'll try to explain, but I can't be sure I'll be very clear. > > I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to :) > > It's just that I came into this situation where we're having > historically a Sun-based server (and client) park and are slowly and > (luckily) only partially switching to linux where it makes sense. The > system as you can imagine has grown over time (e.g. the last twenty-some > years IIRC, the oldest configuration file I touched was from 1994 I > think), and I now have to make linux fit into that ... I never would > have thought that Unix is _that_ much different from Unix. > > > Now the problem. > > I *think* I understand what you describe there. If I were more > knowledgeable about the internals of Linux and autofs I could be of more > help :(
No matter, the point was only that this unexpected case needed to be caught so I could send a mount request to the daemon. The VFS is quite a complicated beast and I'm certainly no expert but have become familiar with much of it, to some small extent, through working on autofs. > > > The patch below should apply ok to most kernels you're using as there > > haven't been changes in this area for quite a while. It would be good if > > you could test this out and see if you observe any other side effects. > > Looks fairly simple - shall I test it even with your warning in the > other mail? Think so. Turns out that I had some other problems, not the least of which is that I'm running a version of autofs that that has changes I've just started testing and I have a kernel that requires a "nosharecache" mount option (that wasn't in my autofs configuration) for autofs to work (don't ask it's not worth it). So there were lots of fails to begin with, but in reality the patched module seem to be working ok. > > > Ian > > I really appreciate what you're doing, Ian. This is tough stuff and to > me it looks very scary. Ya, I guess it is but I've spent a long time working on autofs so I should know what's going on (you'd think). The other thing to remember is that, with version 5, we've only just now reached a position where our feature set is comparable to other industry standard automounters that have had many years of maturation. People tend to forget this and can't understand why we continue to find bugs and things that don't quite work, but we are making strong progress. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
