On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > ... > > Why aren't we doing that for any other filesystem than NFS? > > How hard is it to acknowledge the following little word: > > "regression" > > It's simple. You broke things. You may want to fix them, but you need to > fix them in a way that does not break user space.
Trond has a point Linus. What he "broke" is, for example, a ro mount being mounted as rw. That *could* be a very serious security (etc.etc.) problem which he just fixed. Anything depending on read-only not being enforced will cease to work, of course, and that is what a few people complain about(!). If ext3 in some rare case (which would still mean it hit a few thousand users) failed to remember that a file had been marked read-only and allowed writes to it, wouldn't we want to fix that too? It would cause regressions, but we'd fix it, right? mount passes back the error code on a failed mount. autofs passes that error along too (when people configure syslog correctly). In short; when these serious mistakes are made and caught, the admin sees an error in his logs. This is not wrong. This is good. -- / jakob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
