From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: Re: Question about "mount" command (continued) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:09:12 +0400 Message-ID: <42FC4B18.1050307@rambler.ru> References: <42F85472.8090402@rambler.ru> <42FAFD7A.3090103@rambler.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mxb.rambler.ru ([81.19.66.30]:25868 "EHLO mxb.rambler.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932368AbVHLHJL (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:09:11 -0400 To: Eric Van Hensbergen In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > You probably aren't getting much of a response as fsdevel is kernel > list and mount is a user-land app. The linux version of mount is > maintained as part of the util-linux package. It's maintained on > kernel.org by Adrian Bunk . You may > have better luck contacting him directly, I think there is also a > mailing list just for util-linux, but I could be mistaken. Yes, i know, i just post here because this question has close relationship to vfs operation in general and, besides, there's a second part in the message with question about changing behavour of all filesystems so that they would ignore unknown arguments rather than raise an error and refuse to mount. The result i would like to achieve can be obtained in several ways, so i ask which parts should be implemented in kernel space and which ones in user space. I ask this because two of my patches didn't follow some policies and were rejected. I wouldn't like to produce more bad work. -- Kind regards, Pavel Fedin