On Tuesday February 6, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 07:20:35PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > It's actually not hard to "fix", and nfsd would look a little less weird. But > > what would this add, what do pathnames mean in the context of nfsd, and would > > nfsd actually become less weird? > > It's not actually a pathname we care about, but a vfsmount + dentry > combo. That one means as much in nfsd as elsewhere. We want nfsd > to obey r/o or noatime mount flags if /export/foo is exported with them > but /foo not. Even better would be to change nfsd so it creates it's > own non-visible vfsmount for the filesystems it exports.. What would be the benefit of having private non-visible vfsmounts? Sounds like a recipe for confusion? It is possible that mountd might start doing bind-mounts to create the 'pseudo filesystem' thing for NFSv4, but they would be very visible (under /var/lib/nfs/v4root or something). So having it's own vfsmount might make sense, but I don't get 'non-visible'. NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
