Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > David Walser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Such a patch to mount.c I think should be submitted upstream, >> it only makes sense. > > Well it depends.. it's somewhat ugly and hackish..
Yeah, it should be somewhat clean before putting it before the friendly LKML crowd :o) >> In the meantime, I'm pretty sure the new competitor to >> supermount (the name is slipping my mind at the moment) >> supports ignoring options that don't apply to the filesystem it >> finds, and supermount may also. > > To achieve that it needs to maintain a list of all options for > all filesystems, does it really do that?? Most likely. The thing is called submount, and you can get more info on it (including what we're discussing) here: http://submount.sourceforge.net/
