Jeffrey Mahoney wrote: > Hans Reiser wrote: > > >Jeffrey Mahoney wrote: > > >>This is not > >>the desired interpretation, which is why we need to replace the pathname > >>separator in the name. ReiserFS is the component that is choosing to use > >>the block device name as a pathname component and is responsible for > >>making any translation to that usage. > > >This makes no sense. I have the feeling you see trees and I see forest. > > > No, Hans. I see a problem that has been fixed elsewhere in an identical > manner. The real solution is to eliminate / from block devices in the > long run, not to start introducing mount points with different pathname > interpretation rules. Those may have a place elsewhere, after a tough > uphill battle, and are most certainly overkill for this problem. > > -Jeff
I don't understand your patch and cannot support it as it is written. Perhaps you can call me and explain it on the phone. Hans
