From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel patch to better support bind-mounts
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:25:29 -0500
Message-ID: <47CD4DC9.2030703@redhat.com>
References: <1199788697.26268.24.camel@srss> <1204634872.11825.79.camel@srss>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1204634872.11825.79.camel@srss>
List-Id: <autofs.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs>,
	<mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://linux.kernel.org/pipermail/autofs>
List-Post: <mailto:autofs@linux.kernel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs>,
	<mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org
Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org
To: Lukas Kolbe <lukas@einfachkaffee.de>
Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>

Lukas Kolbe wrote:
> Hi Ian!
>
> Ping? :)
>
> We use this patch now for several servers and clients (debian etch with
> 2.6.18, ubuntu feisty with 2.6.20 and some test systems with 2.6.23),
> and have seen no regression so far, only working automounts :)
> I'd love to see this change upstream, so that I don't have to worry
> about constantly patching my own kernel anymore :)

Why does adding mount on access(2) make things work better?  What works 
better?

    Thanx...

       ps