[PATCH 0/5] Dynamic Pseudo Root

[Trond Myklebust]

On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 19:01 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >    I suspect that our NFS server doesn't currently flag TMPFS
> >    filehandles as being volatile.  If it doesn't, it really should, no
> >    matter what the outcome of the above.  ditto for FAT filehandles
> >    and probably others.
> 
> Why? TMPFS files never survive a reboot anyway, and otherwise they are
> quite stable for the duration of their lifetime.
> 
> The problem we have is matching TMPFS semantics to the semantics of a
> pseudo-fs that demands changing.

Sorry, that didn't come out right.

The problem your scheme has that pseudo-fs semantics really require the
ability to re-create the same _filehandles_ upon reboot in order to work
correctly with existing clients.

TMPFS offers you the ability to recreate more or less the same _files_,
but not the same filehandles (or inode numbers).

IOW: without the non-existent client side support for volatile
filehandles, that scheme is sunk...

Trond