Re: request for patches: showing mount options

[Ian Kent]

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 17:40 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >   all - fs has options, but doesn't define ->show_options()
> >   some - fs defines ->show_options(), but some options are not shown
> >   noopt - fs does not have options
> >   good - fs shows all options
> >   patch - I have a patch
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > autofs      all
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand this.
> > How does autofs show it's options without a ->show_options method?
> 
> It doesn't.  The "all" means, all of them need to be added to
> ->show_options(), not that all are shown.

Oh .. sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention.

But now might be a good time to propose the removal of autofs and rename
autofs4 to autofs. I would need to provide some way to map autofs4
module load requests to autofs for backward compatibility but haven't
thought about that yet.

> 
> I can see now that this is slightly confusing, sorry.
> 
> So the ones that need attention are "all" and "some".  The others are
> fine in theory.  Of course I may have missed something.
> 
> > > autofs4     some
> > 
> > OK, uid and gid aren't shown.
> > That should be straight forward to fix.
> > What's your time frame for this?
> 
> ASAP ;)
> 
> 2.6.24 would be a nice, but it won't be easy...

The autofs4 (and, if needed autofs) should be straight forward.
I'll do these.

Ian


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/