[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <> writes:
> 1) the sledgehammer approach, which doesn't affect the VFS
> 2) the clean approach which requires VFS changes.

Having no idea what this option 2 would look like (though the little bit
of understanding I have leads me to believe that option 2 deserves the
mention `efficient' rather than `clean' (changing the VFS in order to provide
another filesystem hardly sounds `clean' to me)), I have a question:

With option 1, I'm pretty sure it's not hard to provide varying mount options,
of which `ro' would be the most useful (I like to use for the same reason that
I like to make some of my files read-only (it doesn't prevent me from modifying
them, but it forces me to take extra steps to do it)). How about option 2 ?
I understand that providing read-only LoFS mounts is low priority enough
that if it's not trivial it won't be done, hence my question.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.045 / U:7.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site