From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: make real_lookup do dentry revalidation with Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:33:04 +0800 Message-ID: <4AE4E030.9020801@themaw.net> References: <20090923232844.GA22153@llnl.gov> <4ABAEC9F.4020607@themaw.net> <20090924070051.GL14381@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4ABB2178.3090500@themaw.net> <4ACC1360.9030007@themaw.net> <4AD538A4.9090609@themaw.net> <20091025074501.GB9482@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Moyer , Al Viro , Jim Garlick , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Sage Weil , "H. Peter Anvin" To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out5.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.105]:22329 "EHLO outbound.icp-qv1-irony-out5.iinet.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754297AbZJYXdE (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:33:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091025074501.GB9482@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:34:12AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> Some time ago Christoph suggested registering both autofs and autofs4 >> but I'm not sure about that since both modules have always only >> registered autofs as the file system name. > > Oops, I didn't notice that. > >> We can add a MODULE_ALIAS() to the module source but that doesn't >> completely work, I think because the user space tools then don't get the >> directory right. Changing the user space configuration is also >> problematic because booting from a kernel with and without would require >> a configuration change every time. >> >> The obvious simple solution would be to use symlinks to make the >> directory and module appear to be present, set about a process of user >> awareness and remove them after some pre-defined number of subsequent >> releases but I'm not sure how that approach would be received? We could >> even write a module stub that issues a warning message to syslog and >> then loads the autofs module but I haven't tried that yet. >> >> Please, folks, some suggestions. > > Just build two modules using the same source code? That quite ugly, but > if the userspace is really that messed up I can't think of any better > idea. Yep, that's what I've ended up doing for now, (after the autofs4 source has been copied) autofs4 will build from autofs source, along with a Kconfig help message explaining autofs4 is going to be removed. Ian