lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Call For Wartectomy] CRLF conversion out of kernel
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> >It's already controlled by a mount option. If you don't want it, turn it
> >off.
>
> That is not the point. It is kernel bloat because it is
> something that can be done in userland, and quite well in fact.

All of my editors will magically know that files in one part of the
filesystem tree are CRLF files and in another part are not?

> It can cause various problems as well if you're not careful.

I won't doubt you if you say you've had problems. I never have.

> Also, as stated it makes the code more difficult to maintain.

If you're saying that the extension table shouldn't be compiled in, I can
agree. It should be poked in via sysctl(). End of maintenance headache.

> I'd like to see it go for all filesystems. Userland tools can
> deal with it. The mount option does not remove the bloat from
> the kernel.

If you didn't want DOS filesystem semantics, why'd you compile it in in
the first place? Configure it out, or don't load the module.

--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu
A Brazil-nut is neatly packaged and tightly integrated. To turn it into
food, you must crack and remove the shell. I find that I feel the same
way about an increasing number of software products. *sigh*


-
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 13:52    [W:0.088 / U:1.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site