Firstly, thankyou for your reply, However, I still think you are mistaken.
"There is no double re-mounting of the filesystem".
I try again, but in case my writing isn't convincing. Let's agree to disagree,
until
I have more conclusive proof, either to what confirm what you say, or what I
say.
Besides caching at the dm layer, there is caching at the filesystem
layer (files, directories and other stuff). The caching at the DM
layer is not the issue.
If rootfs mounts the dm-device someplace as a
(ntfs)filesystem(readonly), and then later you also mount that same
(ntfs)filesystem
Firstly, thankyou for your reply. I'm not a kernel expert, so I value what you
say.
but as I raised the issue I felt I had to defend the usefulness, userbase and
the need.
> Typically double mounts are done via bind mounts (not really double
> mounted just the device showing someplace else).
Typically double mounts are done via bind mounts (not really double
mounted just the device showing someplace else). Or one would do a
mount -o remount,rw and remount it rw so you could write
to it.
A real double mount where the kernel fs modules manages both mounts as
if it was a separate
I am just an ordinary user of Linux and Ventoy.
Q)
https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2234
Is what I have suggested here, meaningful?
Is there contra-indications to not do it or an alternative suggestions?
thoughts?
Ventoy a GPL2, grub2 environment to native boot iso-s and vdisks.
Ventoy
I am just an ordinary user of Linux and ventoy .
Q)
https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/issues/2234
Is what I have suggested here, meaningful?
Is there contra-indications to not do it or an alternative suggestions?
thoughts?
Ventoy, a GPL software, uses a small kernel patch to achieve a small
