* is there any progress
@ 2006-01-05 17:07 Farkas Levente
2006-01-06 20:46 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Farkas Levente @ 2006-01-05 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: autofs
hi,
is there any progress in the "autofs never umounted" area?
thnaks in advance.
yours.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: is there any progress
2006-01-05 17:07 is there any progress Farkas Levente
@ 2006-01-06 20:46 ` Ian Kent
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ian Kent @ 2006-01-06 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Farkas Levente; +Cc: autofs
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Farkas Levente wrote:
> hi,
> is there any progress in the "autofs never umounted" area?
> thnaks in advance.
Perhaps.
One of the patches in the group I'll be submitting soon changes the
way "busyness" is established. The change will consider a mount busy only
if it has positive reference count such as an actual open file or working
directory set. I'm changing this to make the busy timeout consistent for
both existing versions and the direct mount implementation coming in
version 5.0.
While I can't do much about mounts being triggered by aggressive
filesystem scanning I hope that this change will also allow these scanned
type of busy mounts to timeout and umount.
I only have patches for 2.6.15-rc5-mm3 at the moment but I will probably
need to make a set for 2.6.14 for my own testing.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-06 20:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-05 17:07 is there any progress Farkas Levente
2006-01-06 20:46 ` Ian Kent
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.