On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
mountinfo - IMO needs a sane discussion of what and how should be shown
wrt propagation state
Here's my take on the matter.
The propagation tree can be either be represented
1) from root to leaf listing members of peer
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
mountinfo - IMO needs a sane discussion of what and how should be shown
wrt propagation state
Here's my take on the matter.
The propagation tree can be either be represented
1) from root to leaf listing members
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:04:22PM +, Al Viro wrote:
It's less about the form of representation (after all, we generate poll
events when contents of that sucker changes, so one *can* get a consistent
snapshot of the entire thing) and more about having it self-contained
when we have
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 09:31 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:04:22PM +, Al Viro wrote:
It's less about the form of representation (after all, we generate poll
events when contents of that sucker changes, so one *can* get a consistent
snapshot of the entire thing)
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 17:27 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
mountinfo - IMO needs a sane discussion of what and how should be shown
wrt propagation state
Here's my take on the matter.
The propagation tree can be
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:29:13AM -0800, Ram Pai wrote:
I wonder, what is wrong in reporting mounts in other namespaces that
either receive and send propagation to mounts in our namespace?
A plenty. E.g. if foo trusts control over /var/blah to bar, it's not
obvious that foo has any business
I wonder, what is wrong in reporting mounts in other namespaces that
either receive and send propagation to mounts in our namespace?
A plenty. E.g. if foo trusts control over /var/blah to bar, it's not
obvious that foo has any business knowing if bar gets it from somebody
else in turn.
