On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 18:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:37:13 -0400 Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:07 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
I am re-sending this after help from Ian and git-bisect. To me it's a
show-stopper: I cannot find an
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
No. Solaris defaults to breaking cache consistency.
If so, and since that's obviously what people _expect_ to happen, why not
make that the default, with the consistent behaviour being the one that
needs an explicit option.
Just out of curiosity
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 20:49 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Which is better than having it fail silently, or giving you a mount with
the wrong mount options.
No, Trond.
That commit gets reverted or fixed. It's a regression, and your theories
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
No. Solaris defaults to breaking cache consistency.
If so, and since that's obviously what people _expect_ to happen, why
not make that the default, with the consistent behaviour being the
one that needs an explicit option.
Just out of
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 21:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
No. Solaris defaults to breaking cache consistency.
If so, and since that's obviously what people _expect_ to happen, why not
make that the default, with the consistent behaviour being
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
It did not. The previous behaviour was to always silently override the
user mount options.
..so it still worked for any sane setup, at least.
You broke that. Hua gave good reasons for why he cannot use the current
kernel. It's a regression.
In
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 21:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
It did not. The previous behaviour was to always silently override the
user mount options.
..so it still worked for any sane setup, at least.
You broke that. Hua gave good reasons
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 16:44 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
How is the NFS client to know that these directories are disjoint, or
that no-one will ever create a hard link from one directory to another?
To my knowledge, the only way to ensure this is
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
So you are saying that it is acceptable for the kernel to decide
unilaterally to override mount options?
IT'S WHAT WE'VE APPARENTLY ALWAYS DONE!
Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS?
How hard is it to acknowledge the
Trond,
So you are saying that it is acceptable for the kernel to decide
unilaterally to override mount options? Why aren't we doing that for
any other filesystem than NFS?
I think there are two reasons.
First, I have no problem with the new behavior if it didn't cause a
regression. I am not
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Trond Myklebust wrote:
It did not. The previous behaviour was to always silently override the
user mount options.
..so it still worked for any sane setup, at least.
You broke that. Hua gave good reasons for why he
101 - 111 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
