Re: softupdates as mount option?

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    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.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


:I asked around in freebsd-current list about making softupdates a mount 
:option, and it seems that it can't be done because of backward 
:compatibility and licencing issues (and/or because "Kirk said so"). 
:Since it is implemented in NetBSD (and at a very early stage, someone 
:said 3 years ago), the patches (also posted to freebsd-current) are 
:smallish, and DFBSD is not burdened by backward compatibility issues, 
:maybe it's a good idea to implement it as such?
:
:I'm not 'pressing the issue', and it is not a big deal, but would be 
:convenient to have it as a mount(8) option (like sync and async) instead 
:of something completely external to it.
:
:(If anyone wishes to do it, I suggest reading the pro and con 
:disucussion(s) at freebsd-current before starting)