Re: [PATCH] private mounts

From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 07:26:56 EST

> 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!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at