From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263034AbVAFUSN (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:18:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263011AbVAFUQh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:16:37 -0500 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:2733 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263025AbVAFUNI (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:13:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:13:03 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, greghk@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Restore files_lock and set_fs_root exports Message-ID: <20050106201303.GA24321@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , "Paul E. McKenney" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, greghk@us.ibm.com References: <20050106190538.GB1618@us.ibm.com> <20050106191355.GA23345@infradead.org> <20050106200738.GG1292@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050106200738.GG1292@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i uCc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:07:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > What out of tree filesystem, and what the heck is it doing? > > MVFS, as was correctly guessed from my diff. It is providing a view into > a source-code control system, so that a given process can specify the > version it wishes to see. Yes, different processes then see a different > filesystem tree at the same mount point. We have that in the VFS as namespace and it has no business in a filesystem driver. And we have been telling this for more than a year. > > Without proper explanation it's vetoed. > > What additional explanation are you looking for? The explanation is so good that we can veto that patch with a reason, as it should really be obvious to you an anyone involved.