[RFC,PATCH 0/4] Dynamic Pseudo Root

[Neil Brown]

On Friday December 7, trond.myklebust at fys.uio.no wrote:
> 
> Agreed. You are almost forced to do something like this if you want the
> filehandles to remain valid when the administrator changes the export
> options to allow access to path components that were previously part of
> the pseudo-fs. Otherwise, you have to use volatile filehandles, which
> are poorly supported by existing clients.

I must confess that that is an argument that really bothers me.

If we do not have multiple independent working implementations of
volatile filehandles, then they should not be in the spec.
And if we do, then the server should be allowed (even expected) to use
them.

The 'virtual root' thing is one place were volatile filehandles make a
lot of sense for me.

NeilBrown