On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:34:54PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
> to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
> going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
> users to pass in
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:34:54PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
users to pass in both
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 08:39:53AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
> > to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
> > going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
> > users to pass
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 08:39:53AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
users to pass in both
There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
users to pass in both if they do match (which they could, for example,
get out of
There's nothing to stop a user from passing both subvol= and subvolid=
to mount, but if they don't refer to the same subvolume, someone is
going to be surprised at some point. Error out on this case, but allow
users to pass in both if they do match (which they could, for example,
get out of
6 matches
Mail list logo
