From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:41972 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753691Ab1IWOq6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:46:58 -0400 Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so3762999wwf.1 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1316788444.14812.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1316747758.3346.89.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <20110922134510.24683.14576.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1316707443.3346.44.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <1316709935.3346.48.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <20110922133529.6d3ea8de@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <20110922144453.6cf53a25@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <1316719228.3968.14.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430B480BD4@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <21772.1316774025@redhat.com> <1316788444.14812.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:46:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: Suppress automount on [l]stat, [l]getxattr, etc. To: Trond Myklebust Cc: David Howells , miklos@szeredi.hu, Jeff Layton , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@suse.de, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, leonardo.lists@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > My objections are due to the other cases that I pointed out, where > Miklos's patch introduced changes in behaviour that IMO are unnecessary > and incorrect. Guys, it wasn't Mikos' patch that introduced the changes! What's so hard to understand here? That's why I'm so upset. People talk stupid sh*t about "correct behavior" when clearly no such thing *exists*. And people talk about Miklos changes as if they were some radical change that changed behavior, when they were only a revert to old behavior to begin with (at least as far as autofs is concerned)! Get a grip, people. Stop over-analyzing things. Stop bothering to mention what Solaris does, when the *MUCH* bigger issue is what *Linux* has done for years and years. Stop saying "we'll revert Miklos patch" in the same sentence where you then seem to not even understand that the *original* behavior was the one that Miklos patch re-introduced. Reverting Miklos patch isn't a revert. THAT is the "semantic change". That's the one you need to explain why the heck it would be the right thing to do, rather than imply that we'd be going back to some known state. Linus