almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch writes:
> Rogier Wolff wrote:
> > Yes, yes! It's worth it!
>
> I have to admit that I find the idea rather tempting too. On the other
> hand, is there anything this would do that an automounter wouldn't ?
>
> - Werner, trying to be consistent about kernel-bloat :)
The big thing I can think of is that you could run executables, read
files, even have files open for writing but not actually being written
to, on a filesystem that would periodically make sure its on-disk data
was consistent. It's kind of hard to have the automounter unmount the
filesystem when any of those things happen.
The suggestion is appropriate not for use with infrequently referenced
filesystems (autofs works fine there), but infrequently *written*
filesystems.
-- Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST