Brad Spencer <brad%anduin.eldar.org@localhost> writes: > Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> writes: > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:30:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >>> I still don't understand and object to this "zfs is special" notion. >> >> It is special because it just does not use /etc/fstab (usually). >> I don't like this part either, but we probably don't want to make our >> ZFS different from others (or force "legacy" markers). I understand that. But I don't think it is justification to treat it differently. We have a design that's obviously ok (critical boolean), and the only objections are: 1) it's work to do it 2) having tunables for which there is no point is just complexity for no gain. However, point 2 applies to the entire notion of not mounting any local filesystem early. > The dynamic inheritance that one can do with filesets (allowing a new > fileset to be carved out of an existing one perhaps with different > properties) makes the use of the /etc files very troubled especially > when you delegate fileset administration to someone other than root. > The ZFS legacy marker more or less says that I don't want to do that > with this entity and won't make use of these abilities. Yes, but we aren't talking about prohibiting using normal zfs admin. Just a simple way to logically add a zfs volume into critical_filesystems_local with a property. I realize why things have to be done a bit different, and I don't object to that. What I object to is "zfs is special and should have different semantics from other local filesystems".
Description: PGP signature