On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 16:59 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Yeah, the problem with that is that "autofs doesn't work if containers > > > are used" is ill defined since there are use cases where it does, I > > > believe. At the very least, ill defined in my view of things. > > Customer says: > > "There is no interaction between host and the conatainer. The host use > only his own automount and each containers used automount in their > container." That sounds like a sensible requirement to me. > > I think it's a pretty clearly defined use case. And one which automount > could easily support since the only requirement is that all namespaces > are treated equally. Yep. A problem might be dealing with mounts cloned from the parent namespace at container creation. Ideally they wouldn't be duplicated so they wouldn't need to be cleaned up (perhaps that's justified given the requirement above). Another thought is, what would happen on just cloning a namespace, not necessarily as a container (is that even a sensible question)? The user may actually want the mounts in this case, and can we even tell the difference at namespace creation? > > But I agree that adding safeguards against cases which don't have such > easily defined semantics (such as triggers from several different > namespaces). Look forward to it. > > I'll post updated patches. > > Thanks, > Miklos > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
