On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 18:04 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Myklebust, Trond > <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Your assumption is that in the majority of cases, we do _not_ want to > > automount the final directory unless we know that we are expecting a > > directory. > > Umm. That is the assumption yes, BUT THAT IS ALSO THE CURRENT STATE. > > So it's more than an assumption. It's a fact. > > So when you call it "assumption", you are basically ignoring and > trying to belittle current reality. Why? AFAICR, the whole point of doing the ->automount() stuff was to fix what was perceived to be a broken situation in which the application was more often than not seeing the properties of a directory which it would _never_ directly access. David, Ian, Al and I carefully listed the cases where we might want to optimise away the automount, and designed a system that fit those cases. I fully accept that we need to address any regressions that may have introduced, but your fix goes beyond the regressions that were reported: it basically puts us back where we were before the automount changes. In that situation, what have we gained by the changes, and why keep them at all? -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
