Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 07:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We could prepend another '/' (so that you'd have a path that starts with
> "//"). That's still a legal path, but it's also somethign that even POSIX
> says is valid to mean something else (eg "//ftp/.." or "//socket/.." to
> escape into another namespace).

This sounds good enough to me. My main point is that users that care should be 
able to tell the difference.

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

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
    • From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix d_path for lazy unmounts
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]