Ian Kent wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I think the issues with mount(8) had to do with backwards compatibility;
after all, it's one of the very first Linux utilities at all.
> 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.
Yeah, that's another ball of wax entirely.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
