On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:40:28AM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > ... > > > Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS? > > > > How hard is it to acknowledge the following little word: > > > > "regression" > > > > It's simple. You broke things. You may want to fix them, but you need to > > fix them in a way that does not break user space. > > Trond has a point Linus. > > What he "broke" is, for example, a ro mount being mounted as rw. > > That *could* be a very serious security (etc.etc.) problem which he just > fixed. > Anything depending on read-only not being enforced will cease to work, of > course, and that is what a few people complain about(!). > > If ext3 in some rare case (which would still mean it hit a few thousand users) > failed to remember that a file had been marked read-only and allowed writes to > it, wouldn't we want to fix that too? It would cause regressions, but we'd > fix > it, right? > > mount passes back the error code on a failed mount. autofs passes that error > along too (when people configure syslog correctly). In short; when these > serious mistakes are made and caught, the admin sees an error in his logs.
Hua explained already that seeing the error is not the same as fixing the error: he cannot fix it because NFS implies other systems we _must_ co-operate with. -- Frank - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/