On Apr 7 22:04, Andrey Repin wrote: > Greetings, Corinna Vinschen! > > >> I don't think your original concern is as big a problem as you > >> think, as is indicated by the above setup on linux. > >> > >> I.e. is there some other reason to not treat "linkd" mounts > >> the same as "mountvol" mounts -- in a manner equivalent to linux's > >> 'bind' mounts? > >> > >> I.e. I don't see that that linkd which creates a junction-mount > >> point, should be treated as a symlink. It would provide valuable > >> benefit in cygwin terms in being able to setup directories at > >> multiple place like 'bind' does on linux, and be resistant to being > >> overwritten like symlinks. > > > Look, directory reparse points are, by and large, symlinks to another, > > real directory entry. The directory has a primary path, which is its > > own path under which it has been created, and the reparse point is just > > a pointer to this directory. If that's not a symlink, what is? > > Uhm, there's two ways to look at it. > You may call it a "symlink", but in fact, Linux equivalent of a reparse point > is a mount --bind, or, perhaps, a block-type device mounted at specific > directory.
No, it's not. There's a major difference between mount points and symlinks, which is, mount points are handled inside the kernel, while symlinks are filesystem objects. Reparse points are very certainly filesystem objects. And bind mounts in Cygwin are handled in the "kernel" as well. We can't add reparse points to the mount table on the fly. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpB2lhbQWfMp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
