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:0.034 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site