Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > Do these changes seem reasonable, and if a VFS change is required,
> > possible before the release of kernel 2.4?
> >
>
> Not a chance in hell. Putting it in the VFS would slow down *every
> access*, even to non-removable devices.
>
> Why would a VFS feature for handling ejection slow things down even
> when ejection does not occur?
>
Additional locks required, for one thing. You really don't want to do
this in the VFS; rather as a shim on the block device level.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security notice H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Christopher W. Curtis
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Richard Stallman
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Richard Stallman
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Richard Stallman
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Richard Stallman
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, security n... Richard Gooch
- Re: Autofs: Need UID & VFS hook, securi... Richard Stallman
