On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> Which is better than having it fail silently, or giving you a mount with
> the wrong mount options.
No, Trond.
That commit gets reverted or fixed. It's a regression, and your theories
that it's "better" that way are obviously broken.
It's obviously broken because you seem to say that you know better, even
though you also admit that:
"How is the NFS client to know that these directories are disjoint, or
that no-one will ever create a hard link from one directory to another?
To my knowledge, the only way to ensure this is to put them on
different disk partitions."
the point being that you just disallowed people from doing things that are
sane but _potentially_ dangerous. That's now how we work. The UNIX way sis
to give people rope - if you cannot *prove* that what they are doing is
wrong, then you damn well better not disallow it.
No regressions, Trond. Especially not for stuff that used to work, was
used, and that could be sanely expected to work (which this *definitely*
sounds like).
Please send in a fix. If the fix involves making "nosharecache" the
default, then that is better than making policy decisions like this in the
kernel. The kernel should do what the user asks and not put in unnecessary
roadblocks.
Hua - that said, I don't actually see why the commit you bisected to has
anything to do with the issue being discussed. Can you double-check that
it's literally that particular commit that breaks for you (you could try
just reverting that commit).
Linus
-
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/
[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]
