Re: [PATCH v2012.1] fs: symlink restrictions on sticky directories

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Maybe true for a general purpose computer, but someone who is 
> making a single-purpose device such as a digital TV or a wifi 
> router won't want it.

That's the case for 99% of the features and semantics we have: 
by definition a single-purpose device uses only a small sub-set 
of an infinite purpose OS, right?

Still we only modularize semantics out if they easily fit into 
some existing plug-in/module concept, if the feature is arguably 
oddball that a sizable portion of people want to disable, or if 
it makes notable sense for size reasons. To me it looked 
distinctly silly to complicate things for such a small piece of 
code.

I doubt Kees would mind modularizing it, but it would be nice to 
get VFS maintainer feedback in the:

   { 'you are crazy, over my dead body' ... 'cool, merge it' }

continuous spectrum of possible answers.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/