Hello, On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:04:08AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:54:59PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > > Another topic for discussion was whether a non-transparent unionmount > > should shut down the mountee on going away. > > Actually, what I was discussing is whether non-transparent unionmount > should go away when the mountee goes away.
Ah, I see... Sorry for having understood you wrong. I'm inclined to think that a non-transparent unionmount should go away when the mountee has been shut down, too, because unionmount makes little sense without the mountee, be a transparent or a non-transparent one. > The question you are putting forward here is much easier to answer: > > > I believe such functionality is necessary, because it is unionmount > > who starts the mountee, so it bears some responsibility for its child > > process. > > Yes. Great :-) Regards, scolobb
