On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 15:15 -0800, Russ Cox wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 2:57 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote: > >> And finally, I'd say having these exceptions is a mistake. Unless, > >> there's a really good reason, they break the paradigm of RFNOMNT > >> quite needlessly without even a hint of a benefit. > > > > so, it's likely that RFNOMNT was added and to avoid > > breaking too many things, a few exceptions were added > > with the intention of fixing and removing them. > > i don't see why that's likely. > maybe those were simply judged to be the safe set of devices.
Ok, here's a practical question: given how little use these exceptions have in existing applications, wouldn't removing them be worth it? Thanks, Roman. P.S. I can submit a patch for kernel and applications alike... ;-)
