Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 23:25 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
>> The change I'm planning on proposing is to remove the autofs kernel
>> module and rename the autofs4 module to autofs. This has implications
>> for older modprobe code in init scripts as a MODULE_ALIAS() can't do
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:24 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
>> I'm constructing a list of maintainers to include in discussion about a
>> kernel change to the autofs and autofs4 kernel modules that I expect to
>> submit some time in the future. It has the potential to be fair
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 00:31 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>
>> My initial testing showed that this didn't work in all cases I checked.
>> The only reason we need anything at all is backward compatibility.
>> The whole idea here is to get rid of the need to manually load the
>
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 00:31 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> My initial testing showed that this didn't work in all cases I checked.
> The only reason we need anything at all is backward compatibility.
> The whole idea here is to get rid of the need to manually load the
> autofs module at all.
>
It's esp
On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 23:25 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> The change I'm planning on proposing is to remove the autofs kernel
> module and rename the autofs4 module to autofs. This has implications
> for older modprobe code in init scripts as a MODULE_ALIAS() can't do the
> whole job and an alias will
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 15:24 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> I'm constructing a list of maintainers to include in discussion about a
> kernel change to the autofs and autofs4 kernel modules that I expect to
> submit some time in the future. It has the potential to be fairly
> disruptive and that is the po
