2012/5/2 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: >> (autofs_ptype_expire_direct). Is this on purpose? >> I see a timeout set, so I guess it was the intention to handle the >> expire. > > We currently don't do expiration, since this wasn't intended as a full > autofs implementation, but just a way to parallelize and delay load > things at boot. > > That said, we could support expire easily I guess, and so I have now > added this to the TODO list.
Well you do not have to. I'm just asking. >> It works, so here probably happens something strange: while using the >> field packet.hdr, actually the field packet.v5_packet.hdr is used. Is >> this correct? > > In Autofs5 all packets have the same format which exposes > pid. i.e. autofs_packet_xxx_yyy_t are all typedef'ed to the same packet > struct. Hence accessing this this way is safe. Well yes every autofs packet starts with a header. If it's a autofsv5 pakket, it also starts with a header. Probably because it's the first struct in the union AND the first field part of autofs_v5_packet, it works. I'm just checking the code and see I understand it to write my own autofs implementation using FUSE. The FUSE fs will somehow be what now is the "browseable" map with indirect maps with the automounter, and somehow I have to find a way to make a specific directory a direct autofs mountpoint. Thanks, Stef Bon _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
