On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:39 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:41 -0700, Chris Walker wrote: > > From jimc [07/20 15:31]: > > > Actually, only the sysop knows which is more important: doing the mount > > > storm to respond to stat() or statfs(), or avoiding the storm. > > > > Agreed. In our case, we have 'heavily discouraged' use of /net on our > > big servers and we would prefer that statfs()/stat() waited for the > > automount to complete. > > Just to be absolutely clear. > > The "browse" or "--ghost option isn't being used, in oder to avoid mount > storms, but we still see stat(2) and statfs(2) (et. al.) not wait for a > mount to complete. > > Is that right? > Is anyone in a position to test a kernel patch?
We could add a third case to the description of the recently posted "[autofs] [PATCH 3/7] autofs4 - fix pending checks" patch but it's already been posted. This can also happen via ->lookup() when only the LOOKUP_FOLLOW flag is present, as is the case for stat(2) and statfs(2) and the like. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
