From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 30 17:51:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEFE16A4CE; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:51:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from acampi.inet.it (acampi.inet.it [213.92.1.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5A843D41; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:51:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrea@acampi.inet.it) Received: by acampi.inet.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ADA2B1A; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:51:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:51:26 +0100 From: Andrea Campi To: Ceri Davies , Robert Watson , Doug Barton , Ruslan Ermilov , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20041130175126.GD12379@webcom.it> References: <41AC489E.7050108@DougBarton.net> <20041130171911.GR60679@submonkey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041130171911.GR60679@submonkey.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/mount mntopts.h mount.8 mount.c src/sbin/mount_std mount_std.8 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:51:28 -0000 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.