From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Blandford Subject: Re: compatibility with solaris '[no]browse' mount option Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:48:25 -0700 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <40CE1D29.9070205@sedona.intel.com> References: <16589.63971.33237.4865@segfault.boston.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <16589.63971.33237.4865@segfault.boston.redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: jmoyer@redhat.com Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org Jeff Moyer wrote: >Hello, > >I've currently got a request to support the browse mount option. It seems >do-able entirely in the init script (and this seems the right place). >Would there be any objections to such an approach? > > Best I recall, browse is the same thing as ghosting - correct? Is browsing/ghosting an all on or all off scenario? Ie, could you have a submap that has ghosting on but not for others? If so, I don't think you can handle it in the startup script. In this case, I think we would have to handle it in the parsing of the maps. Otherwise, I think it could be handled in the startup script. I have often wondered about ghosting = browsing and handling this as well. Michael Disclaimer: The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.