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"
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
