Ian Kent wrote: > Al Viro wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:50:55AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >>> Jim Garlick wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 06:36:49AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >>>>> So, it's probably time to post my patch series to get some more eyes >>>>> looking at them. Who on the recipient list of this mail should I include >>>>> for the post? >>>> I'm keen to see Sage's patch land in -mm. I'd be happy to help review/test >>>> your changes if it would help move things along. >>> Wow, at last some interest. >>> >>> I was beginning to think my painstaking effort had been wasted. >>> >>> We will need to verify the patch I've used for the VFS locking is >>> adequate because I had some difficulty working out which of the several >>> originally posted were the ones needed and at least one didn't even >>> apply. It will be included in the series I post. >>> >>> Since no-one else has replied I'll post the patch series and copy >>> everyone on the cc list of the original discussion and yourself. >> It's definitely not wasted. I have a patch series massaging the pathname >> resolution sitting in the local tree and once I'm done with the misc stuff >> (tonight, hopefully) it'll be time for that one. I was going to ask you >> to post once I get to that, since it clearly needs to be integrated. >> So if you have the patch series against the current mainline, please post >> it and I'll deal with that. > > OK, I'll pull the latest changes into my local tree and check there are > no surprises, then post the series. Unfortunately, the series is not > trivial so review will be difficult for those not familiar with the > issues. But it does need review before going further. > > I'm not sure what to do about the autofs module, namely the removal and > rename of autofs4 to autofs, since that will require a fair amount of > experimentation to make it, at least as much as is possible, a seamless > change wrt. to the module usage. OTOH, there aren't many users, if any > at all, of the autofs module nowadays. Perhaps people with embedded > devices are still using it, I don't know. > > Thoughts? I still need to deal with the autofs module. I'm reluctant to remove it and do the rename at the same time the other changes are going in. I thought a better idea would be to leave the autofs module in place for the moment and change the Kconfig help message to describe what is going to happen and alert users to the fact it won't work and also change all the defconfig files that select autofs to select autofs4. Thoughts please? Ian -- 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
