Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261535AbVD0MZM (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:25:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261531AbVD0MZL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:25:11 -0400 Received: from rev.193.226.232.93.euroweb.hu ([193.226.232.93]:9892 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261525AbVD0MZC (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:25:02 -0400 To: bulb@ucw.cz CC: pavel@suse.cz, hch@infradead.org, jamie@shareable.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, 7eggert@gmx.de, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org In-reply-to: <20050427115754.GA8981@vagabond> (message from Jan Hudec on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:57:54 +0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH] private mounts References: <20050426093628.GA30208@infradead.org> <20050426094727.GA30379@infradead.org> <20050426131943.GC2226@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20050426201411.GA20109@elf.ucw.cz> <20050427092450.GB1819@elf.ucw.cz> <20050427115754.GA8981@vagabond> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:23:48 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1666 Lines: 42 > 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/