Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-07 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > It's kind of silly and an abuse of the VFS, I agree. Unfortunately, it's > > been around for a while, it works on other systems and real people are > > using it. And they get a nasty surprise when they try it on Linux: the > > amd-provided NFS filesystems cannot be unmounted, because the

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-07 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! It's kind of silly and an abuse of the VFS, I agree. Unfortunately, it's been around for a while, it works on other systems and real people are using it. And they get a nasty surprise when they try it on Linux: the amd-provided NFS filesystems cannot be unmounted, because the VFS

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-05 Thread Ion Badulescu
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > Nope. Doesn't have to be a symlink - it can be a directory. Overmounted by > bind-mount - you can mount over a mountpoint. And do a mount onto it while the kernel is waiting for revalidation? I'm sorry, but that makes it even more dependent on the

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-05 Thread Ion Badulescu
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: Nope. Doesn't have to be a symlink - it can be a directory. Overmounted by bind-mount - you can mount over a mountpoint. And do a mount onto it while the kernel is waiting for revalidation? I'm sorry, but that makes it even more dependent on the

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Alexander Viro
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Ion Badulescu wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On 2.4 you can do them directly - no intermediate filesystem > > needed. mount() with MS_BIND in flags will do the thing quite fine > > (mount(old_dir,new_dir,NULL,MS_BIND,NULL); or mount --bind

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Ion Badulescu
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > On 2.4 you can do them directly - no intermediate filesystem > needed. mount() with MS_BIND in flags will do the thing quite fine > (mount(old_dir,new_dir,NULL,MS_BIND,NULL); or mount --bind $old_dir > $new_dir; notices that old_dir doesn't have

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Alexander Viro
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Ion Badulescu wrote: > Hi Alan, > > The patch included below allows the kernel to unmount a filesystem whose > root entry is a symlink. > > Let me give you a bit of background. In addition to more common 2-level > indirect mounts (also provided by autofs), amd allows for

one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Ion Badulescu
Hi Alan, The patch included below allows the kernel to unmount a filesystem whose root entry is a symlink. Let me give you a bit of background. In addition to more common 2-level indirect mounts (also provided by autofs), amd allows for the so-called "direct mounts". They are implemented by

one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Ion Badulescu
Hi Alan, The patch included below allows the kernel to unmount a filesystem whose root entry is a symlink. Let me give you a bit of background. In addition to more common 2-level indirect mounts (also provided by autofs), amd allows for the so-called "direct mounts". They are implemented by

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Alexander Viro
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Ion Badulescu wrote: Hi Alan, The patch included below allows the kernel to unmount a filesystem whose root entry is a symlink. Let me give you a bit of background. In addition to more common 2-level indirect mounts (also provided by autofs), amd allows for the

Re: one-line umount patch needed for am-utils

2000-10-03 Thread Ion Badulescu
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: On 2.4 you can do them directly - no intermediate filesystem needed. mount() with MS_BIND in flags will do the thing quite fine (mount(old_dir,new_dir,NULL,MS_BIND,NULL); or mount --bind $old_dir $new_dir; notices that old_dir doesn't have to