[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: symlink_prefix
In article <>,
Hank Leininger <> writes:
> On 2001-06-03, wrote:
>> Suppose I have devices /dev/a, /dev/b, /dev/c that contain the
>> /, /usr and /usr/spool filesystems for FOO OS. Now
>> mount /dev/a /mnt -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
>> mount /dev/b /mnt/usr -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
>> mount /dev/c /mnt/usr/spool -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
> Cool.
> What happens when someone creates new absolute symlinks under /mnt ?
> Will/should the magic /mnt/ header be stripped from any symlink created
> under such a path-translated volume? The answer is probably 'yes', but
> either one violates POLA :(
I think the semantics should be these that are used in the old usespace
nfsd for the "link_relative" option. That one had very intuitive semantics
and behaved sanely even if you had insane recursive machine crossmounts
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:54    [W:0.032 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site