From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Permit filesystem local caching and NFS superblock sharing [try #13] Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:24:42 +0100 Message-ID: <15694.1157549082@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <1157546813.5541.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1157518718.3066.22.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157458817.4133.29.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157451611.4133.22.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157436412.3915.26.camel@raven.themaw.net> <20060901195009.187af603.akpm@osdl.org> <20060831102127.8fb9a24b.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830135503.98f57ff3.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830125239.6504d71a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060830193153.12446.24095.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <27414.1156970238@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <9849.1157018310@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <9534.1157116114@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060901093451.87aa486d.akpm@osdl.org> <1157130044.5632.87.camel@localhost> <28945.1157370732@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1157376295.3240.13.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157421445.5510.13.camel@localhost> <1157424937.3002.4.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157428241.5510.72.camel@localhost> <1157429030.3915.8.camel@raven.themaw.net> <1157432039.32412.37.camel@localhost> <3698.1157449249@warth! og.cambridge.redhat.com> <4987.1157452656@war! thog.cambridge.redhat.com> <11346.1157463522@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <8912.1157536306@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Reply-To: Linux filesystem caching discussion list Cc: Andrew Morton , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Kent Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1157546813.5541.8.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> To: Trond Myklebust List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-cachefs-bounces@redhat.com List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > It really doesn't matter whether there is a symlink or not. automounters > should _not_ be trying to create directories on any filesystem other > than the autofs filesystem itself. Yes, I agree. David