Alexander Viro writes:
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > What I mean by "real" mounts is a table that shows how each FS was
> > brought into the namespace (or each namespace, once you implement
> > CLONE_NEWNS). So for example:
> > #device filesystem roots
> > /dev/hda1 ext2 /
> > /dev/hda2 ext2 /var/spool/mail /gaol/var/spool/mail
> > none proc /proc /gaol/proc
>
> Bad format. If anything, it should contain mount IDs (if you want to have
> union-mount you need those, just to be able to take away components).
> The following might go:
>
> 1 / / ext2 /dev/hda1
> 2 /var/spool/mail / ext2 /dev/hda2
> 3 /proc / procfs
> 14 /gaol/var/spool/mail / ext2 /dev/hda2
> 15 /gaol/proc / procfs
> 42 /gaol/lib/libc.2.1.3.so /lib/libc.2.1.3.so ext2 /dev/hda1
> ...
>
> IOW, ID + mountpoint + location of root in its tree + fs type +
> fs-specific parameters. That at least allows to reproduce the
> namespace. And yes, IMO "device" is fs-specific parameter.
Yeah, sure. I did say "for example". Your format looks fine. One
question: is the mount ID really needed? Can't you distinguish based
on what FS you're mounting (and mountpoint root)?
BTW: I agree that device is fs-specific. It's much nicer to see "none"
done away with.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
