Jeff Garzik wrote:

>
>
> You're still using arguments -against- putting software in the kernel. 
> You don't decrease software's chances of "being broken" by putting it 
> in the kernel, the opposite occurs -- you increase the likelihood of 
> making the entire system unstable.  This is one point that Solaris and 
> Win32 have both missed :)
>
>     Jeff
>
I get what you're saying. :)

However, doing so achieves two goals:
    - I want kernelspace to provide mechanism, and let userspace define 
policy. In this case, the policy is even finer grained than what we had 
before and can be set at trigger time, rather than at initscript start time.
    - I want to get rid of the old ioctl poll interface that didn't work 
in namespaces.

The namespace problem effectively limits what we can do in userspace to 
simply prodding the kernel to tell _it_ to unmount stuff.  A daemon 
alone cannot unmount across namespaces. 

I hope this clarifies where I stand :)

-- 
Mike Waychison
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 (650) 352-5299 voice
1 (416) 202-8336 voice
mailto: Michael.Waychison@Sun.COM
http://www.sun.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, 
and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~