> > > Why not "nosubmnt"?
quoted text
> > 
> > Why not indeed.  Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime.
> 
> Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name
> somewhere.  'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because
> it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in
> itself...

I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best
compromise.  Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override
what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a
read-only file is happily being written by root.

It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to
mounts being privileged-only.

Objections?  Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now
is the time to express any doubts...

Thanks,
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html