Re: [autofs] [PATCH] VFS: Fix automount for negative autofs dentries

2011-07-11 Thread David Howells
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:

 would do the same.

But is much less obvious.  The LOOKUP_FOLLOW flag is the primary reason for
this statement.  The rest are subordinate and would be wholly irrelevant if
LOOKUP_FOLLOW was to be removed from the list.

David

___
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs


Re: [autofs] [PATCH] VFS: Fix automount for negative autofs dentries

2011-07-11 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:13:41PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
 Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
 
  would do the same.
 
 But is much less obvious.  The LOOKUP_FOLLOW flag is the primary reason for
 this statement.  The rest are subordinate and would be wholly irrelevant if
 LOOKUP_FOLLOW was to be removed from the list.

Then keep the LOOKUP_FOLLOW semi-separate as in the original code.
But there's absolutely no reason for the goto spaghetti.

___
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs