On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:15 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > 2> 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. > > Given that there is exactly one implementation of d_manage in the tree I > don't imagine it will be disruptive to change that. Yes, but it could be used by external modules. And there's also have_submounts(). I can update that using the existing d_walk() infrastructure or take it (mostly) into the autofs module and get rid of have_submounts(). I'll go with the former to start with and see what people think. > > Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
