From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: Sick VFS question
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:53:55 -0800
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <3E5BC9D3.8010102@zytor.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302251334430.32233-100000@guppy.limebrokerage.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Charles P. Wright" <cpwright@cpwright.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ezk@cs.sunysb.edu
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
To: Ion Badulescu <ionut@badula.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302251334430.32233-100000@guppy.limebrokerage.com>
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Ion Badulescu wrote:
> 
> Anyway, in that case, why couldn't autofs do the same kind of sick thing --
> even sicker: make a private copy of ext2's (or whatever) i_op table
> for that inode and replace only the follow_link method inside it with its
> own?
> 

It seems a lot uglier than what I proposed, though.  I would prefer not
to have to create such "hack inodes", especially since some filesystems
legitimately change their i_ops around with time.

	-hpa