Hello, Eric. On 03/31/2010 02:51 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I haven't looked at later patches but I suppose this is gonna be >> filled with more meaningful stuff later. > > Yes it will. > >> One (possibly silly) thing >> that stands out compared to get_sb_single() is missing remount >> handling. Is it intended? > > There is nothing for a remount to do so I ignore it. The only > thing that would possibly be meaningful is a read-only mount, > and nothing I know of sysfs suggests read-only mounts of sysfs > work, or make any sense. I see. Wouldn't it be better to make that design choice evident by stating the choice in the comment or at least in the patch description? As it currently stands, you're burying a clear functional change in a seemingly innocent patch which contains zero line of comment and two lines of description. The same pattern holds for this whole patchset. Where are the comments and descriptions about the design and implementation? :-( Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
