From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262062AbUF3T7j (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:59:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262080AbUF3T6s (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:58:48 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:33961 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262062AbUF3T6V (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:58:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:57:13 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: David Howells Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] intrinsic automount and mountpoint degradation support Message-Id: <20040630125713.36004088.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <31080.1088624498@redhat.com> References: <31080.1088624498@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > > Here's a patch that I worked out with Al Viro that adds support for a > filesystem (such as kAFS) to perform automounting intrinsically without the > need for a userspace daemon. It also adds support for such mountpoints to be > degraded at the filesystem's behest until they've been untouched long enough > that they'll be removed. Please don't try to add uncommented code to the kernel. How does this work? Why is autofs unsuitable? Apart from documenting the major functions and data structures, comments are also needed which describe the interpretation of ->mnt_count. This: + if (atomic_read(&mnt->mnt_count) == 2) { is otherwise incomprehensible. Apart from making the code maintainable, tasteful commentary and covering documentation makes the patch review process much more fruitful. Please have a think about that, and resend? Thanks.