From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Leonardo Chiquitto <leonardo.lists@gmail.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
autofs@linux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: automount should ignore LOOKUP_FOLLOW
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:09:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mxeixfaq.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1315281208.3210.26.camel@perseus.themaw.net> (Ian Kent's message of "Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:53:28 +0800")
Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
> On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 19:02 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> If automounting on lstat(2) is the correct behavior (is it? why?) then at
>> least it should be enabled by a global switch or mount option, IMO.
>
> Ideally we wouldn't need to take special precautions for these
> operations at all but we can't, especially for GUI environments that
> constantly scan file systems on mount/umount activity.
>
> Historically for autofs, neither stat(2) or lstat(2) would trigger a
> mount. With the current implementation stat(2) now does but lstat(2)
> doesn't which is a step in the right direction IMHO. So, I recommend we
> continue to encourage user space to make the needed changes so we
> continue to move in the right direction, and yes, I acknowledge it is a
> pain but it'll never get done otherwise.
I'm not quite convinced. What's the advantage of triggering automount
on stat(2)?
Has anybody complained that stat(2) on the mountpoint doesn't cause an
automount?
Thanks,
Miklos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-06 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-05 16:06 Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-05 16:37 ` David Howells
2011-09-05 17:02 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-06 3:53 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 4:03 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 8:09 ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2011-09-06 14:38 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-06 15:39 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-08 12:36 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-08 13:38 ` Miklos Szeredi
2011-09-08 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-08 19:50 ` Al Viro
2011-09-08 20:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-08 21:54 ` Al Viro
2011-09-09 3:37 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-09 3:33 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-09 3:18 ` Ian Kent
2011-09-22 12:29 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mxeixfaq.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu \
--to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=autofs@linux.kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=leonardo.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®