On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:52:31PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:Is there any clear advantage to doing this in the VFS other than saving a superblock and a dentry/inode pair or two?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
These are the mount traps Al Viro has been architecting.Please tell me about these.
I have`nt seen any discussion on the implementation.
Just a few sentences ....
Special vfsmount mounted somewhere; has no superblock associated with it; attempt to step on it triggers event; normal result of that event is to get a normal mount on top of it, at which point usual chaining logics will make sure that we don't see the trap until it's uncovered by removal of covering filesystem. Trap (and everything mounted on it, etc.) can be removed by normal lazy umount.
Basically, it's a single-point analog of autofs done entirely in VFS. The job of automounter is to maintain the traps and react to events.
I remember talking to you about this, and I seem to recall that these mount traps would probably communicate using a struct file, so a trap-user would somehow receive events about when the trap was set off. Will this communication model continue to work within a cloned namespace? What happens if the trap-client closes the file?
-- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sun.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature_______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
