Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

[Christer Weinigel]

Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> writes:

> Who is going to umount it when application crashes, etc? 

Who removes temporary files left behind when an application crashes?
I'd guess a daemon such as autofs could do a very good job here.

>Plus mount required root priviledges last time I checked.

    bash$ ls -l /bin/mount 
    -rwsr-xr-x  1 root root 78504 May  4 23:34 /bin/mount

with proper policies in userspace it allows users to perform mounts.  

I'm not suggesting that the kernel should be unchanged, but really,
some of the proposals here, to put a hell of a lot of complexity into
the kernel it just wet dreams with not much thought of how it affects
the kernel.  What happened to the philosophy of putting complexity and
policy in userspace?  Look at khttpd and tux, they were hacks in the
kernel to try things out.  But what ended up in the kernel is generic
infrastructure that is useful for a lot more applications than just a
web server.  That is the right way to do things.

  /Christer

-- 
"Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"

Freelance consultant specializing in device driver programming for Linux 
Christer Weinigel <christer@xxxxxxxxxxx>  http://www.weinigel.se
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/