On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Al Viro wrote: > > > OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree > > sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between > > the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think > > might be a workable semantics; it does *NOT* describe the data > > structures I would consider final and there are considerable > > areas where we still need to figure out the right behaviour. > > > > Okay, I'm not convinced that shared subtrees as proposed will work well > with autofs. > > The idea discussed off-line was this: > > When you install an autofs mountpoint, on say /home, a daemon is started > to service the requests. As far as the admin is concerned, an fs is > mounted in the current namespace, call it namespaceA. The daemon > actually runs in it's one private namespace: call it namespaceB. > namespaceB receives a new autofs filesystem: call it autofsB. autofsB > is in it's own p-node. namespaceA gets an autofsA on /home as well, and > autofsA is 'owned' by autofsB's p-node.
Mike, multiple parsing through the problem definition, still did not make the problem clear. What problem is autofs trying to solve using namespaces? My guess is you dont want to see a automount taking place in namespaceA, when a automount takes place in namespaceB, even though the automount-point is in a shared subtree? Sorry don't understand automount's requirement in the first place, RP > > So: ..snip... - 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/
