Re: supermount

Re: supermount

[ismail donmez]

Yeah I wonder the same for some time . Is there a good reason not to include supermount in kernel?

-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Górnicki <gutko@poczta.onet.pl>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:30:02 +0200
Subject: supermount

Hello,
Why supermount code is not included in kernel? 
It's maintained by Juan Jose Quintela from Mandrake...

Re: supermount

[Alan Cox]

On Mer, 2003-05-14 at 14:41, ismail donmez wrote:
> Yeah I wonder the same for some time . Is there a good reason not to include supermount in kernel?

Its not considered of sufficient quality currently, and has or had races
that were not fixed. I'm sure Juan will submit it post 2.6 if he gets it
to a polished state

Re: Supermount

[zhilla]

well, for a bit of OT discussion sake, here's how it imho SHOULD work, 
from user (noobs and non guru) desktop point of view:
cd/dvds: mounted automatically on insert / first access. if a program is 
running from it (or a file is open from it), and user tries to eject it 
using button, or any eject-like software, kernel sends a signal to a 
central place. which is, for example, picked up from a window manager, 
or even X itself. which, in a friendly and non intrusive way, displays 
something like this: "drive hdc busy, please close the following 
processes first: 1. mplayer 2. blabla".
also, if a blank media is detected on access, it should not be mounted.
usb drives: similar. if user plugs it out without unmounting, its 
unmounted, and processes using files on it gracefully killed, or somehow 
"warned". how to "warn" them? ill let someonbe smarter think of the way 
:) and about ripping it out without closing, wm/anything should yell 
"bad user!! you should ALWAYS unmount first!"
floppys: i suggest leaving things 100% same. btw. i saw some distros 
having problem with accessing ie /mnt/floppy when there is no floppy 
present. bash goes wild with autocompletion. programs pause for a looong 
time. this could be a kernel bug.
other stuff: dont want to sound like troll, but i guess 98% of people 
dont use anything else.
system partitions: make a clear cut between folders which should be seen 
at all by anyone but root, kernel, special software. in other words: 
reduce clutter in / by hiding almost anything! and partition specific 
mount option such as
"userinvisiblefolder=/dev;/sys;/lib;/proc;/sys;/var"
should also be possible. face it, for regular user in varoius distros, / 
is to crowded.
i'm not saying this is all 100% correct or possible. couse this is, 
imho, greatest ugliness, user friendlyness and productivity reducer in 
linux. m$ has it a bit better in some ways, but crappier in other. any 
of these could be a killer feature for 2.8 kernel series. or 2.6.2x :)
i would like people to discuss this. be polite please :)

Re: Supermount

[Ian Kent]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 903 bytes --]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Freitag, 22. Juli 2005 18:38 schrieb Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic:
> > > Supermount is obsolete there are other tools in userspace that do the
> > > job perfectly.
> > > e.g ivman which uses hal and dbus.
> > 
> > They cannot mount on demand, thus cannot do the same job. The boot
> > partition, for example, is something that should only be mounted when
> > required. The same obviously also goes for network filesystems in many
> > cases (i.e. avoid having zillion idling connections to the server).
> 
> To mount on demand use autofs. Unmounting and dealing with media removal
> is the problem.

That's not the only problem.
We can't do owner mounts of the floppy, for example.
smb mounts have similar problems in needing to identify the requester in 
order to get authentication info.

But that's on the agenda to be fixed.

Ian

Re: Supermount

[Ian Kent]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN, Size: 399 bytes --]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic wrote:

> > To mount on demand use autofs. Unmounting and dealing with media removal
> > is the problem.
> 
> Granted, that can get pretty close. However, having to use /auto/*
> instead of mounting directly where required often limits using it quite
> a bit. Thus, I don't see it as a real alternative.

What do you mean "/auto/*"?

Ian

Re: Supermount

[Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]

> To mount on demand use autofs. Unmounting and dealing with media removal
> is the problem.

Granted, that can get pretty close. However, having to use /auto/*
instead of mounting directly where required often limits using it quite
a bit. Thus, I don't see it as a real alternative.

- Tronic -

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: Supermount

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Freitag, 22. Juli 2005 18:38 schrieb Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic:
> > Supermount is obsolete there are other tools in userspace that do the
> > job perfectly.
> > e.g ivman which uses hal and dbus.
> 
> They cannot mount on demand, thus cannot do the same job. The boot
> partition, for example, is something that should only be mounted when
> required. The same obviously also goes for network filesystems in many
> cases (i.e. avoid having zillion idling connections to the server).

To mount on demand use autofs. Unmounting and dealing with media removal
is the problem.

	Regards
		Oliver

Re: Supermount

[Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

> Supermount is obsolete there are other tools in userspace that do the
> job perfectly.
> e.g ivman which uses hal and dbus.

They cannot mount on demand, thus cannot do the same job. The boot
partition, for example, is something that should only be mounted when
required. The same obviously also goes for network filesystems in many
cases (i.e. avoid having zillion idling connections to the server).

> Also there are other fs like supermount e.g submount etc...

I woudldn't care about the implementation (original supermount,
supermountng, submount or something else). Getting the job done is what
counts.

- Tronic -

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: Supermount

[ioGL64NX]

>2005/7/21, Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic <tronic+lzID=lx43caky45@trn.iki.fi>:
> Is there a reason why this magnificient piece of software is not already
> in the mainline? It seems to be working very well and provides
> functionality that simply isn't available otherwise.
> 
Hi Tronic,

Supermount is obsolete there are other tools in userspace that do the
job perfectly.
e.g ivman which uses hal and dbus.

Including source like supermount because it simply work is not a good
argument. And why to hell should everthing in the kernel, to make
sorry *leazy* people happy? The kernel is not a trash...also
supermount uses ioctl which is nearly removed from kernel?! Please
correct me if i am wrong with ioctl.

Also there are other fs like supermount e.g submount etc...

> For those who are not familiar with it: this system does on-demand
> mounting when the mount point is accessed and automatically umounts
> afterwards. Unlike autofs, this does not require a special automount
> filesystem to be mounted, but the actual filesystems can be directly
> mounted where-ever. Also, it "just works" and the CD drive will eject
> when the button is pressed, without having to wait for the umount
> timeout to pass. I haven't looked inside to find out HOW it actually
> does it, because I simply don't care, as long as it just works.
I used supermount, too - for a long long time...but it cost me a
second to write a bash script with does supermount job's for eject.
;-)
> 
> - Tronic -
> 
> 
>
-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Michael Thonke

Best regards
Michael thonke

Re: Supermount

[Francois Romieu]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit, Size: 215 bytes --]

Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic <tronic+lzID=lx43caky45@trn.iki.fi> :
> Is there a reason why this magnificient piece of software is not already
> in the mainline?

Yes, there is. Please search the archives.

--
Ueimor

Supermount

[Lasse Kärkkäinen / Tronic]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

Is there a reason why this magnificient piece of software is not already
in the mainline? It seems to be working very well and provides
functionality that simply isn't available otherwise.

For those who are not familiar with it: this system does on-demand
mounting when the mount point is accessed and automatically umounts
afterwards. Unlike autofs, this does not require a special automount
filesystem to be mounted, but the actual filesystems can be directly
mounted where-ever. Also, it "just works" and the CD drive will eject
when the button is pressed, without having to wait for the umount
timeout to pass. I haven't looked inside to find out HOW it actually
does it, because I simply don't care, as long as it just works.

- Tronic -

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: supermount

[ismail (cartman) donmez]

On Wednesday 14 May 2003 18:04, Con Kolivas wrote:

> Watch this space. There's some work happening with 2.4 bug testing with
> some supermount development work and then 2.5 will follow soon enough. The
> current version (call it a fork?) of 1.2.5 has a problem with filesystems
> that can write the same file with different case (eg vfat writing file.c
> and File.c) but can be found at the new sourceforge home:
> http://supermount-ng.sf.net
Thanks for the link . I can test it on 2.5.x .


Regards,
/ismail

-- 
Brain fried -- Core dumped 

Re: supermount

[Con Kolivas]

On Wed, 14 May 2003 23:40, ismail donmez wrote:
> Yeah I wonder the same for some time . Is there a good reason not to
> include supermount in kernel?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Górnicki <gutko@poczta.onet.pl>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:30:02 +0200
> Subject: supermount
>
> Hello,
> Why supermount code is not included in kernel?
> It's maintained by Juan Jose Quintela from Mandrake...

Watch this space. There's some work happening with 2.4 bug testing with some 
supermount development work and then 2.5 will follow soon enough. The current 
version (call it a fork?) of 1.2.5 has a problem with filesystems that can 
write the same file with different case (eg vfat writing file.c and File.c) 
but can be found at the new sourceforge home:
http://supermount-ng.sf.net
A bugfix for that known bug should be available soon and then it will need 
lots more testing...
Con

Re: supermount

[ismail donmez]

Yeah I wonder the same for some time . Is there a good reason not to include supermount in kernel?

-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Górnicki <gutko@poczta.onet.pl>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:30:02 +0200
Subject: supermount

Hello,
Why supermount code is not included in kernel? 
It's maintained by Juan Jose Quintela from Mandrake...

supermount

[Maciej Górnicki]

Hello,
Why supermount code is not included in kernel? 
It's maintained by Juan Jose Quintela from Mandrake...

Re: supermount

[Dj_RzulF]

        I gree with Stevie Kieu and Sam Halliday

-- 
Best regards,
 Dj_RzulF

Re: supermount

[John Silva]

Supermount has been integrated into the Mandrake 8 kernel (2.4);
I have been unable to locate the standalone patch for this, however.

Steve Kieu wrote:
> 
>  --- Sam Halliday <10226982@qub.ac.uk> wrote: > This
> email was delivered to you by The Free
> > Internet,
> > a Business Online Group company.
> > http://www.thefreeinternet.net
> I totally aggree, supermount is nice features and it
> should be integrated into the main kernel stream (just
> my HO)
> 
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > hello,
> >     i am fairly new to linux, i need it's fast
> > number crunching powers
> > for my research... and i have only recently begun to
> > have a look at the
> > kernel (i believe every workman should know his
> > tools)..... but i have
> > noticed that supermount is not a standard part of
> > the project, is there
> > any reason why this is? is it due to man power? i
> > would have been less
> > shocked by the absense of other features in the
> >
> 
> > radio support, supermount seems to me to be
> > essential in any operating
> > system.....
> >     i apologise if this is a very silly question or
> > if i have posted
> > this question in the wrong place, but please excuse
> > me, im new to this
> > whole world.
> >
> > and keep up the good work, i wish i knew more about
> > the whole thing so i
> > could contribute something.
> >
> > Sam, Ireland
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> > "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at
> > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> =====
> S.KIEU
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
> - Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
John P. Silva                            jps@aerizen.com

Re: supermount

[Steve Kieu]

 --- Sam Halliday <10226982@qub.ac.uk> wrote: > This
email was delivered to you by The Free
> Internet,
> a Business Online Group company.
> http://www.thefreeinternet.net
I totally aggree, supermount is nice features and it
should be integrated into the main kernel stream (just
my HO)



>
---------------------------------------------------------------
> hello,
>     i am fairly new to linux, i need it's fast
> number crunching powers
> for my research... and i have only recently begun to
> have a look at the
> kernel (i believe every workman should know his
> tools)..... but i have
> noticed that supermount is not a standard part of
> the project, is there
> any reason why this is? is it due to man power? i
> would have been less
> shocked by the absense of other features in the
>

> radio support, supermount seems to me to be
> essential in any operating
> system.....
>     i apologise if this is a very silly question or
> if i have posted
> this question in the wrong place, but please excuse
> me, im new to this
> whole world.
> 
> and keep up the good work, i wish i knew more about
> the whole thing so i
> could contribute something.
> 
> Sam, Ireland
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at 
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/ 

=====
S.KIEU

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

supermount

[Sam Halliday]

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
hello,
    i am fairly new to linux, i need it's fast number crunching powers
for my research... and i have only recently begun to have a look at the
kernel (i believe every workman should know his tools)..... but i have
noticed that supermount is not a standard part of the project, is there
any reason why this is? is it due to man power? i would have been less
shocked by the absense of other features in the kernel such as sound and
radio support, supermount seems to me to be essential in any operating
system.....
    i apologise if this is a very silly question or if i have posted
this question in the wrong place, but please excuse me, im new to this
whole world.

and keep up the good work, i wish i knew more about the whole thing so i
could contribute something.

Sam, Ireland

supermount

[Sam Halliday]

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
hello, i have only been using linux for about a year, i am a physicist
and i need its fast number crunching for my programs, i have recently
become interrested in the kernel (i believe everyone should have some
understanding of their tools),

i have noticed supermount is not a standard part of this project, is
there a good reason why this is? i apologise if this is a very silly
question as i am sure it is, but it really does seem to me to be an
essential feature, are there any plans to include it as a standard
feature or is this due to man-power? i know patches do exist out there
(all beit, really hard to find for recent 2.4.5)

anyways, keep up the good work, i wish i knew enough about the whole
thing to help out in some way,

Sam, Ireland