Messages in this thread | | | From | Stefan Monnier <monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu> | Subject | Re: autofs vs. Sun automount -- new fs proposal | Date | 15 Dec 1998 13:32:48 -0500 |
| |
>>>>> "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/
| |