Re: Reason why "nocache" option is not displayed in "mount"?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:03:38AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Am 2024-03-10 22:57, schrieb Konstantin Belousov: > > > We are already low on the free bits in the flags, even after expanding > > them > > to 64bit. More, there are useful common fs services continuously > > consuming > > that flags, e.g. the recent NFS TLS options. > > > > I object against using the flags for absolutely not important things, > > like > > this nullfs "cache" option. > > > > In long term, we would have to export nmount(2) strings since bits in > > flags are finite, but I prefer to delay it as much as possible. > > Why do you want to delay this? Personal priorities, or technical reasons? Because it is a lot of work which is currently not needed and where I will need to participate.
Re: Reason why "nocache" option is not displayed in "mount"?
Am 2024-03-10 22:57, schrieb Konstantin Belousov: We are already low on the free bits in the flags, even after expanding them to 64bit. More, there are useful common fs services continuously consuming that flags, e.g. the recent NFS TLS options. I object against using the flags for absolutely not important things, like this nullfs "cache" option. In long term, we would have to export nmount(2) strings since bits in flags are finite, but I prefer to delay it as much as possible. Why do you want to delay this? Personal priorities, or technical reasons? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.orgnetch...@freebsd.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
