On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Rainer Krienke wrote: > On Mittwoch 19 Oktober 2005 17:55, Ian Kent wrote: > > As Jeff has said this sort of nesting of mounts is, in general, not > > supported by autofs and it worked previously because the locking was less > > broken in 4.1.3 than in 4.1.4 (yes its still broken in 4.1.4). > > > > Can this case be done safely? > > > > I'm not entirely sure of the answer to this but I've never liked using > > locking in autofs. I introduced it only to prevent mtab corruption during > > mount (correct me if you have a different recollection Jeff). It happens > > during rapid mount activity such as when there as a largish number of > > entries in the master map (of the order of 50 or more). > > > > The mtab locking should be done in mount which narrows the scope of the > > lock enough to allow this case to function as requested. > > > > For me it would be important to learn if this feature will be possible in the > future or if it is decided that for whatever reason it will not be. The > former case would be the best thing for me because I would not have to find a > new solution for mounting home directories and I guess other people with a > large user base would also welcome it. In the latter case I have to think > about a alternative way to go for the future. At the moment my solution is to > use an older version of autofs for suse10.0 installations since this older > autofs version simply works for me but this is of course not an ideal > solution. > > Any comments?
Yes. I was wondering what can be done about this also. All that I can offer is to make a patch to remove the locking from autofs and another for mount (util-linux) to hopefully fix the mtab locking. If you are prepared to carry these non-standard patches we can see how it goes. Somewhat more testing would be required before removing the locking from the distribution. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
