On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:44 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:36 PM David Howells wrote:
> >
> > Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm saying is that with a new interface the rules need not follow
> > > the rules of the old interface, because at the start no one is
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:36 PM David Howells wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > What I'm saying is that with a new interface the rules need not follow
> > the rules of the old interface, because at the start no one is using
> > the new interface, so no chance of breaking anything.
>
> Er.
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> What I'm saying is that with a new interface the rules need not follow
> the rules of the old interface, because at the start no one is using
> the new interface, so no chance of breaking anything.
Er. No. That's not true, since the old interface comes through the new
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:40 AM Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 14:30 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > While this is a standard option as documented in mount(8), it is ignored by
> > most filesystems. So reject, unless filesystem explicitly wants to handle
> > it.
> >
> > The exception
On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 14:30 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> While this is a standard option as documented in mount(8), it is ignored by
> most filesystems. So reject, unless filesystem explicitly wants to handle
> it.
>
> The exception is unconverted filesystems, where it is unknown if the
>
While this is a standard option as documented in mount(8), it is ignored by
most filesystems. So reject, unless filesystem explicitly wants to handle
it.
The exception is unconverted filesystems, where it is unknown if the
filesystem handles this or not.
Any implementation, such as mount(8)
6 matches
Mail list logo
