> On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:47 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
quoted text
> > This patch fixes the problem for me, thanks.
> >
> > Is this patch changing the behavior of "sharecache" to
> > "try-to-share-cache-if-possible", or adding a third behavior? If the
> > user explicitly asks for "-o sharecache", does he get an error back
> > if the mount options mismatch?
> 
> There has never been a 'sharecache' flag as far as the kernel is
> concerned. The default behaviour has always been to share.

It's not about default (for which backward compatibility is most important
and this patch is perfectly fine), but user explicitly asks for
"sharecache". In this case if for any reason the cache cannot be shared, I
am not sure if he should get an error back.

I for one agree with Ian and Linus that changing default to nosharecache
might be the best thing to do, but since I am now able to use the latest
kernel, I am very happy already.

Thanks a lot for your attention to my problem. :-)

quoted text
> Trond


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