On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 21:27 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ian Kent wrote: > >> But it is an utterly daft way to implement something like that. If you > >> want a lock, create an explicit lock, but doing string-matching on > >> command lines is idiotic. > > > > This isn't a lock or anything remotely like it. > > It is a lock, or at least something remotely like it. > > > And, yes, if run together closely enough the check could easily fail to > > work but that isn't what the check is about. > > What is it about, then? > > > Put another way, running multiple instances of the autofs version 5 > > daemon isn't supported at the moment. > > > > For the common case usage multiple instances of the daemon aren't > > needed. > > Pardon my earlier abrasiveness (I'm having a horrible day), but why not > simply have /var/lock/automount and flock() it?
True and I very nearly wrote back and said that but then I started to remember the painful issues of SIGKILL and trying to work out if the flag file is really valid and the issues of mount(8) using a lock file with flock() and stopped myself. But, yes, I could do that. To support multiple instances I will need to check in a few places that I don't interfere with other process mounts. I suspect the Cambridge guys have either been lucky so far and possibly not properly investigated the issue. They don't seem to want to discuss it either so I fear their in for an unpleasant surprise at some point. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
