Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:56:47 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal |
| |
On 15 Dec 1998, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au> 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |