On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 22:11, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
Is a new private subtree created in the new
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
Is a new private subtree created in the new larger shared subtree? or
will that be pruned out in the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
No. I want to allow the mount. However, if there are several shared
'/home' (through CLONE_NS or mount --bind), there remains the following
two key problems:
- - How do you expire the mounts and umount them? (undefined with
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 13:15, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
I think the question you meant to ask was what would happen if you
mounted something on /tmp/mnt2/a/b (the slave copy) and then mounted
something else on /tmp/mnt1/a/b. In that case there's two places where
the propagated mount
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think
might be a workable semantics; it
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
tagged as shared (becomes a member of a p-node of size 1).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:47, Mike Waychison wrote:
...snip...
Question 2:
When a mount gets propogated to a slave, but the slave
has mounted something else at the same place, and hence
that mount point is masked, what will happen?
Concrete example:
mount
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
No - I have been missing a typo. Make that if mountpoint of what we
are moving
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
tagged as shared (becomes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
children of A if A-A. This
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
mount --make-shared /foo
mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when sharing is
enabled (infinite loop).
How does this force an
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, if I understand it correctly:
(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
$ mount --make-shared /foo
will make A-A
$ mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node,
A-B, B-A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, if I understand it correctly:
(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
$ mount --make-shared /foo
will make A-A
$ mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
will create a
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
gets propagation from there (as we would do for rbind).
Why this
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
gets
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
as usual to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
2. mount
We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
doesn't become a member or slave of any p-node and is simply attached
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 07:46:59PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
2. mount
We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
29 matches
Mail list logo
