Having no idea what this option 2 would look like (though the little bit
of understanding I have leads me to believe that option 2 deserves the
mention `efficient' rather than `clean' (changing the VFS in order to provide
another filesystem hardly sounds `clean' to me)), I have a question:
With option 1, I'm pretty sure it's not hard to provide varying mount options,
of which `ro' would be the most useful (I like to use for the same reason that
I like to make some of my files read-only (it doesn't prevent me from modifying
them, but it forces me to take extra steps to do it)). How about option 2 ?
I understand that providing read-only LoFS mounts is low priority enough
that if it's not trivial it won't be done, hence my question.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/