On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:09:17PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > 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? Do it in an initscripts and let users simply not do it, they shouldn't even know what kind of filesystem they are on. -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
