>That assumes that everyone has the same stuff in the same places. I.e. >that there is a universal tree with different subset hidden from different >processes. But that is obviously a wrong approach - e.g. it loses ability >to bind different stuff on the same place in different namespaces.
Aren't you trying to boil another egg in my pot? In Linux today, everyone (every process on the same Linux system, that is) has the same stuff in the same place. I'm trying to propose an incremental improvement, and relaxing that restriction isn't part of it. The only change would be that some processes wouldn't have some stuff in _any_ place. (Either because they didn't ask to see a particular mount, or because they did and it covered up something else). >IOW, notion that every directory has its "real" absolute pathname >(and that's what your approach boils down to) won't match the reality >anyway. Not sure which reality you're talking about. I don't think a directory has a real absolute pathname, because I think the person who mounts the filesystem that contains it chooses part of its absolute pathname for the lifetime of the mount. But as between multiple processes on the same system at the same time, yeah, the directory has one name. (statements above have to be modified for chroot, btw). -- Bryan Henderson IBM Almaden Research Center San Jose CA Filesystems - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
