lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] private mounts
From
Date
> What makes you think Pavel was talking about semantics?!

Well, if it brings us ugly semantics, keeping those two lines out for
^^^^^^^^^
a while can help merge a lot...

> The point was that:
> Ok, there is a strong disagreement about these two lines. Could we have
> a patch with everything but these two lines, so it can be integrated
> immediately to profit of the testing and generally be useful, and then
> the controversial bits when the issue is beaten to death?

I could remove this check.

But it would only cause confusion. How would the userspace utilities
differentiate between the safe out-of-kernel and the unsafe in-kernel
module? Adding hacks to make this possible is far more ugly IMO than
integrating the current well tested solution.

It makes no sense. If someone would give me a rational explanation
why it is bad, I would be content. But you just tell me it's
terrible, ugly, crap which may well be true, but are not technical
terms, which I can relate to.

> As I understand it, doing things like this is butt ugly. Not just in
> fuse -- in NFS, in samba, everywhere where such hacks are employed. But
> now they just have enough of those hacks and want a cleaner solution.

Please do. I want it too.

_When_ we have a better solution, all the hacks can be removed, and
the world will rejoice.

Until then, let the hacks live! Please!

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-27 14:29    [W:0.109 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site