Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 May 1998 00:06:35 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
To:        gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu
Cc:        dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, jwd@unx.sas.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: exporting an MFS partion? Anyone?
Message-ID:  <199805110006.RAA29608@usr05.primenet.com>
In-Reply-To: <19980510021714.59821@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from "John-Mark Gurney" at May 10, 98 02:17:14 am

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> ok, another kernel option that we need to document in LINT...  so far
> I have:
> PCI_QUIET
> NO_SCSI_SENSE
> EXPORTMFS

This last should be non-optional.

The real problem with this specific case is that the NFS export handling
code is implemented per FS.

This has to do with the split root/non-root mount model, if you trace
it down.

What is needed is:

o	short term	make the "EXPORTMFS" non-optional

o	long term	Use the same export (and mount) code in
			each FS.


Specifically, the mount code needs to lose all knowledge of whether
or not the mount is a root or non-root mount.

A VFS_MOUNT should result in a populated mount structure *without*
any "covered vnode" mapping whatsoever.

The vnode "covering" (ie: the act of mounting an FS onto a mount
point) should be in common code, above the VFS layer, which deals
with vnode pointer manipulations.  Note: the mount point traversal
code is already in the upper level code in namei().


The covering, at the time a covering occurs, is then responsible for
doing the NFS export.  That is, it is in the upper level mapping
code.


The last remaining piece is a VFS_SETMP() VFS OP to set the "last
mounted on" field in the superblock of FS's that support the concept.

This is also called from the covering code.



Common code means that everything works or nothing works; once one
thing works, then everything works, and everything is maintained
in sync. for the rest of time (fewer per-FS issues, fewer places for
bugs to hide).


There should probably be a seperation of the idea of a remount into
a seperate unmount/mount, and put that at the upper level, as well.
This would let soft updates become a mount option that can be
specified with a "mount -u", for example.



					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805110006.RAA29608>