| To: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] - remove mounpoint UUID code |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:22:59 -0400 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <34665.192.168.3.1.1205266196.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <47D20F78.7000103@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1205196252.15982.69.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47D5DE13.8030902@xxxxxxxxxxx> <34665.192.168.3.1.1205266196.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 07:09:56AM +1100, nscott@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I don't have any immediate plans. I can imagine it could be used to > stitch parts of the namespace together in a filesystem that supports > multiple devices (in a chunkfs kinda way) ... or maybe more simply > just an in-filesystem auto-mounter. *shrug*. But its there, the tools > support it (once again, I didn't see a userspace patch - hohum), so I > would vote for leaving it in its current form so some enterprising, > constructive young coder can try to make something useful from it > at some point. :) That kind of automounter really doesn't belong into the low-level filesystem. If we really wanted it it would go into the VFS, storing the uuid or other identifier for the mountpoint in an xattr. This is really just dead junk that should go away. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] - remove mounpoint UUID code, nscott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: can I shrink an xfs?, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH, RFC] - remove mounpoint UUID code, nscott |
| Next by Thread: | Arpita, has requested to connect online, Arpita Choudhary |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |