On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ian Kent wrote:
> >
> > That sounds good a good idea for inclusion in 4.1.1 (I have quite a list
> > already).
> >
> > Move the decision on what the map contains to the program map implementer.
> > That would be fairly straight forward to implement given that I have a
> > placeholder function in each map module.
> >
>
> Well, it's pretty much the only thing that makes sense, since a program
> map can inherently do "anything".
>
> Pretty much ghosting implies that there are now two operations required
> of a map: key->data lookup (old), and enumerate all keys (new).
To fit in with the existing framework I would need to require the entire
map returned for a NULL key.
>
> And of course autofs needs to deal with the consequences of the map
> changing underneath it.
I normally reread the map and try again on lookup failure. There is the
HUP signal to do a manual map reread.
--
,-._|\ Ian Kent
/ \ Perth, Western Australia
*_.--._/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
v Web: http://themaw.net/
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
