https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=255061

Edward Tomasz Napierala <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[email protected]

--- Comment #1 from Edward Tomasz Napierala <[email protected]> ---
Hello, and thank you!  I'm really happy to see work being done on what's
probably the main piece of functionality missing from our current automounter.

I like the approach you've taken.  Regarding the unmounting problem (notes.txt,
#1): I agree about it being the primary missing piece.  I'm not sure I like the
idea of recursive unmounts (or recursive anything) in the kernel.  I wonder,
though, using your example:

/net              (autofs)
/net/foo/a        (nfs, automounted)
/net/foo/a/b      (autofs, automounted)
/net/foo/a/x      (autofs, automounted)
/net/foo/a/b/c    (nfs, automounted)

It should be technically possible (using 'umount -f') to forcibly unmount
/net/foo/a despite /net/foo/a/b and its siblings still being mounted, and
unmount the (now unaccessible) submounts afterwards.  Thus, it might be
possible to add a flag to the unmount(2) syscall to make it to fail the
unmount(2) syscall with EBUSY if there are still vnodes open, except the ones
with autofs submounts mounted over it?

Regarding notes.txt, #4: I think autofs(5) doesn't stop just the initial thread
that triggered the mount, but also all other attempts to access the same
mountpoint - the threads should "queue up" on the automountd request structure,
and get unpaused after automountd signals the mount is done.

As for all the other points, I generally agree, or just have nothing to add at
the moment.  I've only skimmed through the source for now, but don't have any
major suggestions yet apart from a fairly general ones, eg that it might make
sense to use tree(3) macros, or not check for NULL before free(3).

I wonder, should we perhaps move this discussion to http://reviews.FreeBSD.org?

Thanks again!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"

Reply via email to