On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:56:27 -0700 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 14:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:44:18 +0100 > > Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:18AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > If we can't pull the entire series into -mm, can we just put the > > > > first three patches for now? They can stand on their own. > > > > > > Yes, they're kinda a series of their own. But I still think we really > > > want this in -mm. As we've seen on the kernel summit there's a pretty > > > desparate need for it. And there's not many changes in this area in > > > -mm, maybe the unprivilegued mounts. I'd personally prioritize the > > > r/o bindmounts over them as they're more needed and we need more reviewing > > > of the unprivilegued mounts (I'll try to come back to that soon). > > > > What's the situation on unprivileged mounts? iirc, it's all a bit stuck. > > > > If unpriv-mounts code isn't going to go into mainline ahead of r/o bind > > mounts then it'd make a big mess to prepare the r/o bind mount patches on > > top of unprivileged mounts. > > > > It sounds like a better approach would be for me to merge the r/o bind > > mounts code and to drop (or maybe rework) the unprivileged mounts patches > > I actually don't think they collided too much. There were a couple of > patches, like maybe 2 or 3 that needed any futzing at all. > > I'll cook up a set straight on top of mainline if that helps. > That sounds good, thanks. There may be collisions with unionfs too, but if that happens in a non-trivial way I may just drop unionfs - it doesn't look like it's going to get there in its present form. - 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/
