Re: [fuse-devel] PATCH: Unmount on inactivity (2)

[Remy B. <rem...@po...>]

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> For sshfs, a better solution would be to disconnect from the server,
> but not actually unmount.  And reconnect on new activity.  The
> reconnect part is already working, and adding forced disconnection
> does not seem too hard.

Well, this doesn't fit my usage of network mounts. I use them to access
data files, so basically I open what I need, work on it, save it, and
close the application. I find it useful not to have to mount the network
share manually (the automount feature), and not to have to remember
unmounting it after I'm done (the unmount-on-idle feature).

And I really want it to unmount when I'm done, as I am using a laptop,
and there might not be anything to connect to anymore later (e.g. no
network connection available).

> This would have the advantage, that CWD within the mountpoint wouldn't
> defeat disconnection.

The way I use it, a CWD within the mountpoint *is* activity, and I
really *don't* want to have an unmount in this case. It seems to me the
two features (disconnection and unmount-on-idle) are pretty orthogonal.

> Right.  What I recommend, is that we wait a bit with adding this to
> the library, to see if people find it useful, and possibly until a
> stacking infrastructure is added to libfuse.

I understand. Judging from the (lack of) feedback I have received to the
patch (except from Valient and Csaba), either you are right and only few
 people find the feature useful, or there are no developers on the list
that would patch their installation of fuse, and most people just use
the releases. We'll see.

What's that stacking infrastructure you mentioned?

-- Remy


Remove underscore and suffix in reply address for a timely response.