Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261368AbUAMHkE (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:40:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261812AbUAMHkE (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:40:04 -0500 Received: from wombat.indigo.net.au ([202.0.185.19]:40975 "EHLO wombat.indigo.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261368AbUAMHj6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:39:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:39:41 +0800 (WST) From: Ian Kent X-X-Sender: To: Mike Waychison cc: Jeff Garzik , "H. Peter Anvin" , Subject: Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs In-Reply-To: <4002D1E8.1010407@sun.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.6, required 8, AWL, BAYES_10, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION, IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_PINE) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1518 Lines: 42 On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike Waychison wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > > > You're still using arguments -against- putting software in the kernel. > > You don't decrease software's chances of "being broken" by putting it > > in the kernel, the opposite occurs -- you increase the likelihood of > > making the entire system unstable. This is one point that Solaris and > > Win32 have both missed :) > > > > Jeff > > > I get what you're saying. :) > > However, doing so achieves two goals: > - I want kernelspace to provide mechanism, and let userspace define > policy. In this case, the policy is even finer grained than what we had > before and can be set at trigger time, rather than at initscript start time. > - I want to get rid of the old ioctl poll interface that didn't work > in namespaces. > > The namespace problem effectively limits what we can do in userspace to > simply prodding the kernel to tell _it_ to unmount stuff. A daemon > alone cannot unmount across namespaces. Another important consideration is "can implementing this functionality be significanly simplified by doing it within the kernel" or if functionality is not otherwise able to be done in userspace. I believe that these points were made in the original proposal. Ian - 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/