Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add the ``--mount'' command line option

[Carl Fredrik Hammar]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:01:55PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:53:27PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:10:24PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/unionmount.c b/unionmount.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..e4aa043
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/unionmount.c
> > 
> > Given that this is to implement the --mount option, I think mount.c
> > would be a better name.  The context of unionfs establishes that this
> > means unioning.
> > 
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> > > +/* Hurd unionmount
> > > +   The core of unionmount functionality.
> > 
> > Again the purpose of the file isn't really to implement unionmount,
> > but to implement the --mount option.
> 
> The idea is that the ``--mount'' option is just an intermediate step
> towards a ``stand-alone'' unionmount implementation. That's why I call
> this file in a more general way than just ``mount''.

What the final implementation of unionmount will look like is still
under discussion, e.g. whether it will be part of settrans, a helper to
settrans, or a standalone translator.  Even being an option to unionfs
is not totally out of the question, just very unlikely.

Even if it's certain that it will not be part of unionfs, we might still
release it as such.  So that people can use it and test it, until the
next implementation of unionmount is released.  So it should be treated
as an extension to unionfs unless that would require too much extra work
that will later be thrown away.

That said, I'm making a lot of fuzz of a very small issue here.  :-)

> Thanks a lot for your comments! :-)

I'm glad to help out.  :-)

I wanted to review the other patches that has more meat on them.
But I couldn't compile at the time because I messed up my nfs setup.
I'll see if I can get to them later.

Regards,
  Fredrik