lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal
    Date
    >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au> 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.


    Stefan

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.020 / U:123.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site