On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:18:21AM +, Ton Hospel wrote:
> I was talking about avoiding that the same device gets multiple mounted
> at the SAME place, e.g. when doing mount -a, which is often used as a
> quick way to get the new entries in /etc/fstab
You get EBUSY if you try.
-
To
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:18:21AM +, Ton Hospel wrote:
I was talking about avoiding that the same device gets multiple mounted
at the SAME place, e.g. when doing mount -a, which is often used as a
quick way to get the new entries in /etc/fstab
You get EBUSY if you try.
-
To unsubscribe
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Alexander Viro writes:
>
> > [...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
> > fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
> > (late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
> > it had been
Albert D. Cahalan writes:
> Alexander Viro writes:
>
> > [...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
> > fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
> > (late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
> > it had been fixed during the
Alexander Viro writes:
> [...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
> fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
> (late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
> it had been fixed during the last spring. That's it. You were never
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote:
>
>> It should still need a special flag or something, since it's
>> impossible for userspace to check this atomically.
>
> To check _what_? Having the same tree mounted
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote:
> It should still need a special flag or something, since it's
> impossible for userspace to check this atomically.
To check _what_? Having the same tree mounted in several places is
allowed. End of story. Atomicity of any kind is a non-issue - if you
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 1. multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4
>>
>> 2. its still possible to mount devices several times.
>>IMHO it shouldnt be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4
2. its still possible to mount devices several times.
IMHO it shouldnt be possible like
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote:
It should still need a special flag or something, since it's
impossible for userspace to check this atomically.
To check _what_? Having the same tree mounted in several places is
allowed. End of story. Atomicity of any kind is a non-issue - if you
have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote:
It should still need a special flag or something, since it's
impossible for userspace to check this atomically.
To check _what_? Having the same tree mounted in several
Alexander Viro writes:
[...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
(late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
it had been fixed during the last spring. That's it. You were never promised
Albert D. Cahalan writes:
Alexander Viro writes:
[...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
(late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
it had been fixed during the last spring.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Alexander Viro writes:
[...] Not allowing multiple mounts of the same
fs was an artifact of original namei() implementation. At some point
(late 80s) it had been fixed by Bell Labs folks in their branch. In Linux
it had been fixed during
1. multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4
2. its still possible to mount devices several times.
IMHO it shouldnt be possible like 2.2.18
with umount in /proc/mounts is still the real information,
in /etc/mtab all corresponding mountpoints are deleted.
3.
1. multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4
2. its still possible to mount devices several times.
IMHO it shouldnt be possible like 2.2.18
with umount in /proc/mounts is still the real information,
in /etc/mtab all corresponding mountpoints are deleted.
3.
16 matches
Mail list logo
