> Pekka Savola writes:
> > But it still looks dirty. Also, it's easier to add it many times by
> > mistake; IPv4 addresses do not allow this. And as you have to remove
> > them N times too, this may create even more confusion.
> There is this growing (think growing as in "fungus") set of thinking
> that just because something can be misused, this is an argument
> against it even existing.
But that does not seem to be the argument here. Rather, it is "I can
certainly see where this can cause harm, but I cannot see where it is
useful for anything at all, so why do we have it?".
> I think this is wrong. I'm seeing it a lot, especially on this list,
> and it's becomming a real concern at least to me.
> Most of the time the argument goes like:
> 1: "Well, we allow this because you can do usefull things X Y and
> Z as a result."
What is X, Y and Z in this particular case? Nobody seems to have said
Incidentally, this thread is *very* similar to the "mount the exact same
FS several times on the exact same mountpoint" thing. I'd expect to get a
similar resolution (i.e., *don't* allow that).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/