Re: [PATCH 00/14] GFS

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2005-08-10T12:05:11, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > What would a syntax look like which in your opinion does not remove
> > totally valid symlink targets for magic mushroom bullshit? Prefix with
> > // (which, according to POSIX, allows for implementation-defined
> > behaviour)? Something else, not allowed in a regular pathname?
> None.  just don't do it.  Use bindmount, they're cheap and have sane
> defined semtantics.

So for every directoy hiearchy on a shared filesystem, each user needs
to have the complete list of bindmounts needed, and automatically resync
that across all nodes when a new one is added or removed? And then have
that executed by root, because a regular user can't?

Sure. Very cheap and sane. I'm buying.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>

-- 
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business	 -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

-
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/