davem@redhat.com (David S. Miller) wrote on 13.05.01 in <15103.18224.265350.877968@pizda.ninka.net>:
> Pekka Savola writes:
> > But it still looks dirty. Also, it's easier to add it many times by
> > mistake; IPv4 addresses do not allow this. And as you have to remove
> > them N times too, this may create even more confusion.
>
> There is this growing (think growing as in "fungus") set of thinking
> that just because something can be misused, this is an argument
> against it even existing.
But that does not seem to be the argument here. Rather, it is "I can
certainly see where this can cause harm, but I cannot see where it is
useful for anything at all, so why do we have it?".
> I think this is wrong. I'm seeing it a lot, especially on this list,
> and it's becomming a real concern at least to me.
>
> Most of the time the argument goes like:
>
> 1: "Well, we allow this because you can do usefull things X Y and
> Z as a result."
What is X, Y and Z in this particular case? Nobody seems to have said
that.
Incidentally, this thread is *very* similar to the "mount the exact same
FS several times on the exact same mountpoint" thing. I'd expect to get a
similar resolution (i.e., *don't* allow that).
MfG Kai
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 21:00:34 EST