Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:44:54 +1100
Alexander Viro writes:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > The "clean" (or "fast", however you want to look at it) solution is to
> > let the dentry layer do the work for you. For that you would need
> > aliasing support for all dentries. Offhand, I don't see how you'd
> > support a read-only option with a pure dentry scheme. In fact, I see
> > the read-only requirement as a strong reason for doing it the "hard"
> > way (i.e. not enhancing the VFS interface). A read-only lofs is great
> > for securing ftp and tftp servers.
>
> Erm... Says who that intermediate dentries in stack can't have inodes
> associated with them? Sure, pure vnode scheme is nice, but our one is also
> usable.
In an earlier thread hpa talked about doing it all in the dentry
layer and not creating extra inodes at all. It would all be done by
having aliases. I think that precludes modifying the behaviour of
inodes.
The sledgehammer approach I mentioned would use normal dentries and
virtual inodes, and the virtual inodes would have a set of glue
operation functions. The glue functions would in turn call the
operation functions of the real inodes.
Regards,
Richard....
-
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/