On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > And disadvantages: you can't have broken symlinks.
> >
> > This actually turns out to be quite a bit of a problem when one tries
> > to use bind mounts with autofs. For one thing, it's perfectly legal
> > to have /autofs/foo as a symlink to /autofs/bar/foo, where /autofs/bar
> > is not yet mounted -- but a bind mount can't handle that...
>
> First of all, you still have symlinks.
Oh yeah, of course. :-)
> What's more, the right solution is to use local objects at the
> mountpoints. And forget about having a small tree full of links to
> real mountpoints. Think of autofs-with-one-node.
That's what Sun's autofs and am-utils call 'direct mounts', which are not
yet supported by our autofs (unless I missed something recently). Direct
mounts are good for some things, but not for everything. In particular,
they are useless for cascading auto-triggered mounts (think
/usr/local/src, /usr/local, and /usr, all automounted).
[and, btw, Linux _still_ doesn't properly support am-utils' direct mounts,
although all that's needed is to remove LOOKUP_FOLLOW from path_init in
sys_umount...]
As for bind mounts, I'll probably revisit them after I'm done with the
Solaris autofs support in am-utils -- which will probably be a while. If I
can get the thing to chain-trigger all the necessary mounts, we might be
able to do something useful with it..
Thanks,
Ion
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
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/
