From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m6837uDv021065 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:07:56 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A80CB2C6840 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id yRCKbSk9acAwyN4D for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4872DA4E.3040405@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:09:02 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] - remove mountpoint UUID code References: <47D20F78.7000103@sandeen.net> <1205196252.15982.69.camel@edge.scott.net.au> <47D5DE13.8030902@sandeen.net> <34665.192.168.3.1.1205266196.squirrel@mail.aconex.com> <20080312072259.GA26148@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20080312072259.GA26148@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: nscott@aconex.com, xfs-oss Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 07:09:56AM +1100, nscott@aconex.com wrote: >> I don't have any immediate plans. I can imagine it could be used to >> stitch parts of the namespace together in a filesystem that supports >> multiple devices (in a chunkfs kinda way) ... or maybe more simply >> just an in-filesystem auto-mounter. *shrug*. But its there, the tools >> support it (once again, I didn't see a userspace patch - hohum), so I >> would vote for leaving it in its current form so some enterprising, >> constructive young coder can try to make something useful from it >> at some point. :) > > That kind of automounter really doesn't belong into the low-level > filesystem. If we really wanted it it would go into the VFS, storing > the uuid or other identifier for the mountpoint in an xattr. This is > really just dead junk that should go away. Can I get a yea or nay on this from sgi, then? Thanks, -Eric