[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal

    On 15 Dec 1998, Stefan Monnier wrote:

    > >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <> writes:
    > > 1) the sledgehammer approach, which doesn't affect the VFS
    > > 2) the clean approach which requires VFS changes.
    > Having no idea what this option 2 would look like (though the little bit
    > of understanding I have leads me to believe that option 2 deserves the
    > mention `efficient' rather than `clean' (changing the VFS in order to provide
    > another filesystem hardly sounds `clean' to me)), I have a question:

    No. VFS misses a generic mechanism for stacked filesystems. lofs is not
    the only consumer for that - actually umsdos and hfs are trying to do the
    same. It's a VFS issue and it's done in several kernels (*BSD, for
    one^Wthree). General idea behind it being that each layer can decide
    whether to serve operation, decline it or pass to underlying one(s). There
    is a support for lightweight layers (e.g. UID translation). There is
    unionfs. BTW, Richard's devfs would also fit nice into this beast.

    > With option 1, I'm pretty sure it's not hard to provide varying mount options,
    > of which `ro' would be the most useful (I like to use for the same reason that
    > I like to make some of my files read-only (it doesn't prevent me from modifying
    > them, but it forces me to take extra steps to do it)). How about option 2 ?
    > I understand that providing read-only LoFS mounts is low priority enough
    > that if it's not trivial it won't be done, hence my question.
    And problem with implementing that being?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean