On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 15:29 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:48:28PM +0100, jon wrote: > > > Yes, but like I say automount is normally based on an event. I am simply > > talking about a flag/switch that can be used for optional implied > > mkdir,rmdir around calls to mount() unount() - nothing more, nothing > > less ! > > umount(2) is not the only way for mount to detached from a mountpoint. > There's exit(2) as well - when the last process in a namespace exits, it > gets dissolved. What should happen upon those? Even more interesting > question > is what should happen if you do such mount, then clone a process into a new > namespace and have it exit. Should _that_ rmdir the hell out of that > mountpoint (presumably detaching everything mounted on it in all namespaces)? >
I should have titled it "Feature request from a simple minded user" I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. When I learnt *nix it did not have "name spaces" in reference to process tables. I understand the theory of VM a bit, the model in my mind each "machine", be that one kernel on a true processor or a VM instance has "a process table" and "a file descriptor table" etc - anything more is beyond my current level of knowledge. Containers for example are something I dont understand in two ways. I dont truely understand the theory, I also dont understand why in a world of true VM someone would want to make something as complex as linux even more complex using containers for what seems little or no benefit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
