Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Unless I'm missing something, implementing this as a seperate filesystem
> type still has the appropriate atomicity guarantees as long as the VFS
> support complex expiry, whereby userspace would tag submounts as being
> part of the overall expiry for a base mountpoint.
>
It would, but it seems like a vastly more invasive change to the VFS
than ought to be necessary.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
