[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
Followup to:  <>
By author: (Peter Benie)
In newsgroup:
> The implementation is correct; it's the *design* that's wrong -
> implementing read-only in their design is very difficult. It is,
> however, an obvious design, and it is likely to have been repeated
> elsewhere, which is why I would never write code that depended on the
> 'obvious' semantics of read-only lofs.
> The same problems may occur in Linux unless read-only is part of the
> design. That is why I wanted you to give a justification now, rather
> than waiting until a lofs implementation is complete.

No justification is good enough. A properly designed lofs at the
dcache level should be almost zero overhead. There is no way you can
do that for something that modifies the properties of the inodes.
You're better off having a separate "rolofs" for that.


PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
See for web page and full PGP public key
I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see
"To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Misérables

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    [W:0.156 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site