Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:34:12AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> Some time ago Christoph suggested registering both autofs and autofs4 >> but I'm not sure about that since both modules have always only >> registered autofs as the file system name. > > Oops, I didn't notice that. > >> We can add a MODULE_ALIAS() to the module source but that doesn't >> completely work, I think because the user space tools then don't get the >> directory right. Changing the user space configuration is also >> problematic because booting from a kernel with and without would require >> a configuration change every time. >> >> The obvious simple solution would be to use symlinks to make the >> directory and module appear to be present, set about a process of user >> awareness and remove them after some pre-defined number of subsequent >> releases but I'm not sure how that approach would be received? We could >> even write a module stub that issues a warning message to syslog and >> then loads the autofs module but I haven't tried that yet. >> >> Please, folks, some suggestions. > > Just build two modules using the same source code? That quite ugly, but > if the userspace is really that messed up I can't think of any better > idea. Yep, that's what I've ended up doing for now, (after the autofs4 source has been copied) autofs4 will build from autofs source, along with a Kconfig help message explaining autofs4 is going to be removed. 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
