lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][CFT] per-process namespaces for Linux


    On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Ion Badulescu wrote:

    > On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:07:29 -0500 (EST), Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, David L. Parsley wrote:
    >
    > >> Yeah, mount --bind is cool, I've been using it on one of my projects
    > >> today. But - maybe I'm just not thinking creatively enough - what are
    > >> the advantages of mount --bind versus just symlinking?
    > >
    > > 1) Correctly working ".." (obviously relevant only for directories)
    > > 2) Try to create symlinks on read-only NFS mount. For bonus points, try
    > > to do that one one client without disturbing everybody else.
    > > 3) Try to make it different for different users, for that matter.
    >
    > And disadvantages: you can't have broken symlinks.
    >
    > This actually turns out to be quite a bit of a problem when one tries
    > to use bind mounts with autofs. For one thing, it's perfectly legal
    > to have /autofs/foo as a symlink to /autofs/bar/foo, where /autofs/bar
    > is not yet mounted -- but a bind mount can't handle that...

    First of all, you still have symlinks. What's more, the right solution
    is to use local objects at the mountpoints. And forget about having a
    small tree full of links to real mountpoints. Think of autofs-with-one-node.

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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.049 / U:123.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site