Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
17 Dec 1998 19:27:17 GMT

Followup to: <E0zqcTO-0005Km-00@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk>
By author: pjb1008@cam.ac.uk (Peter Benie)
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> 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.

-hpa

-- 
    PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD  1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74
    See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key
        I am Bahá'í -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/
   "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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/