On 08/02/2011 11:18 AM, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:04:06AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
I am not sure either, but I still believe my proposal is superior to
write-to-a-file specifically. Writing to a file, be it in proc, sys,
or wherever, leaves a window of opportunity open between mounting a
filesystem and limiting its caches. Doing it on mount is atomic.
Effectively, I see this limit as a property of a particular instance
of a mounted filesystem. Since all properties of a filesystem are
specified during mount, this becomes a natural extension.
The trouble is, dentry tree is fundamentally a property of superblock.
It's shared between *all* instances of that fs in all mount trees...
And how is it different from any fs-specific options, like the ones extX
have, for instance ? Many of them seem to operate on a superblock.
If you mount a superblock somewhere, you can tweak specifics about its
operation. If you mount it somewhere else, the assumption is you know
what you're doing.
--
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
