This patch fixes the problem for me, thanks. Is this patch changing the behavior of "sharecache" to "try-to-share-cache-if-possible", or adding a third behavior? If the user explicitly asks for "-o sharecache", does he get an error back if the mount options mismatch? > The best I can do given the constraints appears to be to have the > kernel first look for a superblock that matches both the fsid and the > user-specified mount options, and then spawn off a new superblock if > that search fails. The attached patch does just that. > > Note that this is not the same as specifying nosharecache everywhere > since nosharecache will never attempt to match an existing superblock. > > Finally, for the record: I still feel very uncomfortable about not > being able to report the state of the client setup back to the sysadmin. > AFAIK, the only way to do so is to stat the mountpoints, and compare > the device ids. > > Trond
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
