> I am not surprised when mounts on /mnt/1 do not propogate to /mnt/2/1 > This is expected, and I am perfectly happy. Because the mount is > attempted on 'B' and 'B' has nobody to propogate to. > > when mount on /mnt/2/1 (i.e on C at dentry 1) is attempted, I expect > to see a new mount 'E' at that dentry. That is happening and > I am happy with it. > I also expect that the mount propogates to /mnt/1 too (i.e on 'A' at > dentry '1'). Because 'C' and 'A' have propogation setup. > > But what I also expect to see is: the new mount 'F' at /mnt/1 ( mount A > at dentry 1) be obscured by the already existing mount on /mnt/1 i.e > mount 'B'. > > And the reason I want the new mount at /mnt/1 (i.e 'F') obscured is that > the new mount is not done on 'B' but is done on 'A'. > > The "most recent mount rule" makes 'B' obscured instead of 'F' > and I am expecting "the topmount visible rule" to be applicable > here which makes 'B' still visible and 'F' obscured.
OK. I'm beginning to get it :) You want the propagated mount to be "tucked under" the existing mount. Well, that's conceivably a valid semantic for the propagation. I'm not sure which I like better. I think not hiding the propagated mount is more intuitive. Miklos - 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
