lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: multimounting cdroms ???


On 26 Jul 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Followup to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10007261852080.23645-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
> By author: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > ... but doing umount the same number of times you've done mount isn't ;-)
> >
> > Actually, the more I'm looking at it, the more it seems that correct
> > solution is to consider mount as
> > if (nothing mounted)
> > mount
> > else if (mounted is not busy)
> > replace
> > else
> > fail
> > Makes sense for union-mounts too - normal mount is =, union is += ...
> >
>
> The reason for this feature was to support direct mounts in autofs
> (eventually.) However, I understand you have included a way to
> trapdoor a dentry instead.

Not yet, but it will go in as soon as the current shitstorm will settle
down. And with that we couldn't care less for replacement vs. mounting
atop - automounter would mount at that point anyway and you either get
the trap replaced with the real tree (the _unmount_ is replaced with
"mount the trap here and it will replace the tree") or you get the tree
mounted over trap and umount just exposes the trap again. Both semantics
are equally usable for direct mounts - no problem with that.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.445 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site