On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 12:26 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:37 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:43 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > > Eric, Mateusz, I appreciate your spending time on this and > > > > > particularly > > > > > pointing > > > > > out my embarrassingly stupid is_local_mountpoint() usage mistake. > > > > > > > > > > Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. > > > > > > > > > > If all goes well (in testing) I'll have follow up patches to correct > > > > > this > > > > > fairly > > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > Related question. Do you happen to know how many mounts per mount > > > > namespace tend to be used? It looks like it is going to be wise to put > > > > a configurable limit on that number. And I would like the default to be > > > > something high enough most people don't care. I believe autofs is > > > > likely where people tend to use the most mounts. > > Yes, I agree, I did want to try and avoid changing the parameters to > ->d_mamange() but passing a struct path pointer might be better in the long > run > anyway. > Andrew, could you please drop patches for this series. I believe they are: fs-make-is_local_mountpoint-usable-by-others.patch fs-add-have_local_submounts.patch autofs-make-mountpoint-checks-namespace-aware.patch fs-remove-unused-have_submounts-function.patch I'm going to have a go at what Eric and I discussed above rather than update this series. Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
