On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 22:11, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 22:11, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:33:08PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> That still keeps you from using the 'build tree elsewhere' and 'mount
> - --move' approach though, as the parent mountpoint would likely be shared.
I believe it's also just the source mountpoint that's the problem, not
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
>>building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
>>
>>Unfortunately,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
> building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
>
> Unfortunately, the RFC states that moving a shared vfsmount is
> prohibited (for which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Ram wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>
>>>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
>
>
If there exists a private subtree in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
>>
>>>If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
>>>happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> >>
> >>>If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> > If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
> > happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
> > Is a new private subtree created in the
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
Is a new private subtree created in the new
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
Ram wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
Unfortunately, the RFC states that moving a shared vfsmount is
prohibited (for which the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
Unfortunately, the RFC
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:33:08PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
That still keeps you from using the 'build tree elsewhere' and 'mount
- --move' approach though, as the parent mountpoint would likely be shared.
I believe it's also just the source mountpoint that's the problem, not
the
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> No. I want to allow the mount. However, if there are several shared
> '/home' (through CLONE_NS or mount --bind), there remains the following
> two key problems:
>
> - - How do you expire the mounts and umount them? (undefined
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> I think the question you meant to ask was what would happen if you
> mounted something on /tmp/mnt2/a/b (the slave copy) and then mounted
> something else on /tmp/mnt1/a/b. In that case there's two places where
> the propagated
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:02:43PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> oops. I had the following in mind.
>
> mount /tmp/mnt1
> ** mount --make-shared /tmp/mnt1 **
> mkdir -p /tmp/mnt1/a/b
> mount --rbind /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2
> mount --make-slave /tmp/mnt2
>
> In this case
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 13:15, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> (Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> > Ram wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
> happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
> Is a new private subtree created in the new larger shared subtree? or
> will that be pruned out in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Ram wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>
>>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>Al
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>Al Viro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK, here comes the first
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
I think the question you meant to ask was what would happen if you
mounted something on /tmp/mnt2/a/b (the slave copy) and then mounted
something else on /tmp/mnt1/a/b. In that case there's two places where
the propagated mount
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 13:15, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:02:43PM -0800, Ram wrote:
oops. I had the following in mind.
mount device1 /tmp/mnt1
** mount --make-shared /tmp/mnt1 **
mkdir -p /tmp/mnt1/a/b
mount --rbind /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2
mount --make-slave /tmp/mnt2
In this case it
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
No. I want to allow the mount. However, if there are several shared
'/home' (through CLONE_NS or mount --bind), there remains the following
two key problems:
- - How do you expire the mounts and umount them? (undefined with
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
Is a new private subtree created in the new larger shared subtree? or
will that be pruned out in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Al Viro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
>>>sharing. What we want is being able
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Al Viro wrote:
>
> > OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
> > sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
> > the parts of mount trees. Below
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sorry for the bad quoting below:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> > Al Viro wrote:
> >
> OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Al Viro wrote:
>
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
> sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
> the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think
> might be a workable semantics;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think
might be a workable semantics; it
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
>>- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
>>tagged as shared
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:47, Mike Waychison wrote:
...snip...
> >
> > Question 2:
> >
> > When a mount gets propogated to a slave, but the slave
> > has mounted something else at the same place, and hence
> > that mount point is masked, what will happen?
> >
> > Concrete example:
> >
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
> - --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
> tagged as shared (becomes a member of a p-node of size 1).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ram,
I can't speak for Al, but the following is how I understand it:
Ram wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>>>No - I have been missing a typo. Make that
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "if mountpoint of what we
> > are moving...".
>
> OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
> removal of the
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
No - I have been missing a typo. Make that if mountpoint of what we
are moving
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ram,
I can't speak for Al, but the following is how I understand it:
Ram wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
No - I have been missing a typo. Make that if
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
tagged as shared (becomes a member of a p-node of size 1).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:47, Mike Waychison wrote:
...snip...
Question 2:
When a mount gets propogated to a slave, but the slave
has mounted something else at the same place, and hence
that mount point is masked, what will happen?
Concrete example:
mount
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
tagged as shared (becomes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
>>shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
>>children of A if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
children of A if A-A. This
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
> shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
> children of A if A->A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
> occurs before
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
> shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
> children of A if A->A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
> occurs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Well, if I understand it correctly:
>>
>>(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
>>
>>$> mount --make-shared /foo
>>
>>will make A->A
>>
>>$> mount --bind /foo
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, if I understand it correctly:
>
> (assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
>
> $> mount --make-shared /foo
>
> will make A->A
>
> $> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
>>
>>mount --make-shared /foo
>>mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>>
>>A nested --bind without sharing makes sense,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
>
> mount --make-shared /foo
> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when sharing is
> enabled (infinite loop).
How does this force
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> 3. bind
>
> bind works almost identically to mount; new vfsmount is created for every
> place that gets propagation from mountpoint and propagation is set up to
> mirror that between the mountpoints. However, there is a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "if mountpoint of what we
> are moving...".
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree from the vfsmount of the source mountpoint.
By the way,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
No - I have been missing a typo. Make that if mountpoint of what we
are moving
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree from the vfsmount of the source mountpoint.
By the way, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
3. bind
bind works almost identically to mount; new vfsmount is created for every
place that gets propagation from mountpoint and propagation is set up to
mirror that between the mountpoints. However, there is a difference:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
mount --make-shared /foo
mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when sharing is
enabled (infinite loop).
How does this force an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
mount --make-shared /foo
mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, if I understand it correctly:
(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
$ mount --make-shared /foo
will make A-A
$ mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node,
A-B, B-A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Well, if I understand it correctly:
(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
$ mount --make-shared /foo
will make A-A
$ mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
will create a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
children of A if A-A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
occurs before or
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
children of A if A-A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
occurs before or
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > 6. mount --move
> > > >
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > 6. mount --move
> > prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> > as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 6. mount --move
> prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
> gets propagation from there (as we would do for rbind).
Why this
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
gets propagation from there (as we would do for rbind).
Why this
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
gets
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
6. mount --move
prohibited if
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 07:46:59PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > 2. mount
> >
> > We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
> > vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 2. mount
>
> We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
> vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
> doesn't become a member or slave of any p-node and is simply
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
2. mount
We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
doesn't become a member or slave of any p-node and is simply attached
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 07:46:59PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
2. mount
We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
80 matches
Mail list logo
