>On 12/29/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:23:30PM +0100, Holger Berger wrote:
>> >
>> > So the goal is to allow infinite nesting?
>> >
>>
>> That would be my guess, based on the fact that disallowing the opposite
>> is effectively impossible.
>
>I guess it
On 12/29/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:23:30PM +0100, Holger Berger wrote:
>
> So the goal is to allow infinite nesting?
>
That would be my guess, based on the fact that disallowing the opposite
is effectively impossible.
I guess it may be possible by a
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:23:30PM +0100, Holger Berger wrote:
>
> So the goal is to allow infinite nesting?
>
That would be my guess, based on the fact that disallowing the opposite
is effectively impossible. However, no serious investigation into this
problem has been done.
- Eric
--
Eric Sc
On 12/29/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:48:17PM -0800, Jason Austin wrote:
> Which part is the bug? The crash or allowing pools of files that are on a
zfs?
The crash. Disallowing files from a ZFS filesystem would solve part of
the problem, but one could
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:48:17PM -0800, Jason Austin wrote:
> Which part is the bug? The crash or allowing pools of files that are on a
> zfs?
The crash. Disallowing files from a ZFS filesystem would solve part of
the problem, but one could always create a lofi device on top of a ZFS
file, or
Which part is the bug? The crash or allowing pools of files that are on a zfs?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
