Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:51:26 +0100 From: Andrea Campi <andrea+freebsd_cvs_all@webcom.it> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/mount mntopts.h mount.8 mount.c src/sbin/mount_std mount_std.8 Message-ID: <20041130175126.GD12379@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <20041130171911.GR60679@submonkey.net> References: <41AC489E.7050108@DougBarton.net> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1041130143605.34072F-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20041130171911.GR60679@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:19:12PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > >>Is it useful for the nodev option to cause a hard failure here? Note, I'm
> > > >>not arguing against either change, just pointing out a side effect.
> > > >
> > > > There's no longer a "nodev" option, please ask Poul-Henning for details. ;)
> > >
> > > Yes, I understand the mechanics, I'm just curious if you think that this
> > > should result in a fatal error. It sounds like you think that the answer
> > > to that is yes, which if that is the correct answer I'm fine with that.
> >
> > I think a reasonable alternative would be for use of the nodev option to
> > silently no-op in all cases but (perhaps) devfs, since the behavior
> > described for nodev is in fact now simply the way the system behaves.
> > Maybe the middle ground is to print a warning?
>
> If it's intended behaviour then it's probably ok as is for -HEAD.
... although a HEADSUP would be nice...
Still, it was my impression that phk@ was trying to do what Robert
suggested.
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041130175126.GD12379>