Re: softupdates as mount option?

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:
:-On [20040527 03:42], Matthew Dillon (dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
:>    On the otherhand, if I were to prioritize this it would be, well, 
:>    dead last on my list because there just isn't enough of a benefit
:>    in making it a mount option over what we have now, and there is a ton
:>    of other work that needs to go into the system (just following the 
:>    original goals list) that I would rather be working on.
:
:But if someone wants to work on this and presents working patches would you
:include it?
:
:-- 
:Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono

    I wouldn't exclude it :-).  It would depend on the implementation.  There
    are some hurdles, such as the fact that our mount flags are still being
    passed in an integer bitmap rather then as a string, I think.  If
    someone were to fix that as well... :-)

						-Matt