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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans