From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754176Ab2AWWGI (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:06:08 -0500 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:45605 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753850Ab2AWWGF (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:06:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:07:20 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Theodore Tso Cc: Kay Sievers , Roger Leigh , Karel Zak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: /etc/fstab.d yes or not Message-ID: <20120123220720.1b2e9663@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20120120140444.GC13157@x2.net.home> <20120120154912.GK8797@codelibre.net> <20120120162220.GN8797@codelibre.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:55:21 -0500 Theodore Tso wrote: > I am extremely dubious about systemd, and would much rather it not be on any system that *I* run (and using UUID's to identify kernel notification is just whacko) , but I have to agree with Kay in that /etc/fstab.d is Just Wrong. The /etc/fstab file is parsed by many programs, shell scripts, and not just the ones in util-linux. We should consider it an ABI, and not mess with it. Pedantically speaking /etc/fstab is not API, getmntent is API. In practical terms though it would be very 'interesting' to implement getmentent with an fstab.d, if not down right impossible because the argument is a FILE *. So with a good coding hat on - please don't consider fstab API, it's got a programming interface 8). Otherwise I agree fstab.d is wrong. Alan