On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 11:05 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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(). > > Good point about 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. > > That will be interesting to so. It is not clear to me that if d_walk > needs to be updated, and if d_walk doesn't need to be updated I would > be surprised to see it take into autofs. But I am happy to look at the > end result and see what you come up with. I didn't mean d_walk() itself, just the have_submounts() function that's used only by autofs these days. That's all I'll be changing. To take this functionality into the autofs module shouldn't be a big deal as it amounts to a directory traversal with a check at each node. But I vaguely remember talk of wanting to get rid of have_submounts() and autofs being the only remaining user. So I mentioned it to try and elicit a comment, ;) > > Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
