Subject: Re: g/c mountcompatnames ?
To: =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Jarom=EDr_Dolecek?= <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/27/2001 10:39:25
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jarom=EDr Dolecek wrote:
> Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > I think this might be the first time we drop a COMPAT option. I'm not s=
> > if that's a good thing to do.
> > How is it becoming a maintenance problem - it's not changing, is it?
> It is changing. It feels ... wrong to add a new filesystem and not update
> list of filesystems in mountcompatnames, even through that list is obso=
> Also, due to how current vfs_sysctl() works, that list has to be updated
> and kept in sync and order with CTL_VFS_NAMES in order to support fs sysc=
Ok, then we've been sloppy about defining our compat option. If the list
is also being used for fs syscalls, then mountcompatnames is a bad
name. Or the compat option is more that you can use a number not a name
(we defined it wrong).
> That stuff is dead weight. It's no longer possible to test if it's
> actually still working. It's been dead for like 7 years now (since
> NetBSD 1.0).
That's not the point I'm trying to make. :-) This would be the first time
we REMOVE a compat option AFAIK. This would be the first time we remove
a compat option AFAIK. This would be the first time we remove a compat
option AFAIK. Especially one which we knew worked right at the time. We
pride ourselves very much on compatability, and here we'd be removing it.
I agree that it's unlikely that there are mount commands still around from
back then, but I know folks have binaries and fs's from back then
As for testing, well, all you have to do is get creative. True none of the
code in the tree will test this option, but that doesn't mean we can't
make a testbed. ;-)
So what does everyone else think?