On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 22:11, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Vir
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:33:08PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> That still keeps you from using the 'build tree elsewhere' and 'mount
> - --move' approach though, as the parent mountpoint would likely be shared.
I believe it's also just the source mountpoint that's the problem, not
the destinati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
>>building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
>>
>>Unfortunately,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:08:32PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, fwiw, I have the same kind of race in autofsng. I counter it by
> building up the vfsmount tree elsewhere and mount --move'ing it.
>
> Unfortunately, the RFC states that moving a shared vfsmount is
> prohibited (for which the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Ram wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>
>>>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
>
>
If there exists a private subtree in a larg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
>>
>>>If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
>>>happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to s
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 11:45, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> >>
> >>>If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared s
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:21, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> > If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
> > happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
> > Is a new private subtree created in the ne
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> No. I want to allow the mount. However, if there are several shared
> '/home' (through CLONE_NS or mount --bind), there remains the following
> two key problems:
>
> - - How do you expire the mounts and umount them? (undefined wi
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:37:54PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> I think the question you meant to ask was what would happen if you
> mounted something on /tmp/mnt2/a/b (the slave copy) and then mounted
> something else on /tmp/mnt1/a/b. In that case there's two places where
> the propagated mou
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:02:43PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> oops. I had the following in mind.
>
> mount /tmp/mnt1
> ** mount --make-shared /tmp/mnt1 **
> mkdir -p /tmp/mnt1/a/b
> mount --rbind /tmp/mnt1 /tmp/mnt2
> mount --make-slave /tmp/mnt2
>
> In this case i
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 13:15, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> (Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> > Ram wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison w
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:07:12PM -0800, Ram wrote:
> If there exists a private subtree in a larger shared subtree, what
> happens when the larger shared subtree is rbound to some other place?
> Is a new private subtree created in the new larger shared subtree? or
> will that be pruned out in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Hmm.. something is up with my quoting again..)
Ram wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Ram wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>
>>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>Al
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 23:02, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ram wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>Al Viro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>OK, here comes the first draf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ram wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Al Viro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
>>>sharing. What we want is being able t
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 14:31, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Al Viro wrote:
>
> > OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
> > sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
> > the parts of mount trees. Below
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sorry for the bad quoting below:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >
> > Al Viro wrote:
> >
> OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the bad quoting below:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
> Al Viro wrote:
>
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree
> sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between
> the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think
> might be a workable semantics; i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
>>- --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
>>tagged as shared (b
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 13:47, Mike Waychison wrote:
...snip...
> >
> > Question 2:
> >
> > When a mount gets propogated to a slave, but the slave
> > has mounted something else at the same place, and hence
> > that mount point is masked, what will happen?
> >
> > Concrete example:
> >
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 04:47:04PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Although Al hasn't explicitly defined the semantics for mount
> - --make-shared, I think the idea is that 'only' that mountpoint becomes
> tagged as shared (becomes a member of a p-node of size 1).
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ram,
I can't speak for Al, but the following is how I understand it:
Ram wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
>>
>>>No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 09:32, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "if mountpoint of what we
> > are moving...".
>
> OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
> removal of the s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
>>shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
>>children of A if A-
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
> shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
> children of A if A->A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
> occurs before o
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 03:11:18PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> I don't think that solves the problem. B should receive copies (with
> shared semantics if called for) of all mountpoints C1,..,Cn that are
> children of A if A->A. This is regardless of whether or not propagation
> occurs before
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Well, if I understand it correctly:
>>
>>(assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
>>
>>$> mount --make-shared /foo
>>
>>will make A->A
>>
>>$> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Well, if I understand it correctly:
>
> (assuming /foo is vfsmount A)
>
> $> mount --make-shared /foo
>
> will make A->A
>
> $> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node,
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
>
>>Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
>>
>>mount --make-shared /foo
>>mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>>
>>A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 01:31:02PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Corner case: how do we handle the case where:
>
> mount --make-shared /foo
> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar
>
> A nested --bind without sharing makes sense, but doesn't when sharing is
> enabled (infinite loop).
How does this force an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> 3. bind
>
> bind works almost identically to mount; new vfsmount is created for every
> place that gets propagation from mountpoint and propagation is set up to
> mirror that between the mountpoints. However, there is a differe
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 06:11:50AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> No - I have been missing a typo. Make that "if mountpoint of what we
> are moving...".
OK, got it, so the point is that its not clear how you'd propagate the
removal of the subtree from the vfsmount of the source mountpoint.
By the way,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:42:09PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > 6. mount --move
> > > > pro
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:06:56PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > 6. mount --move
> > > prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> > > as usual
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:02:13AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > 6. mount --move
> > prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> > as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
> >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 6. mount --move
> prohibited if what we are moving is in some p-node, otherwise we move
> as usual to intended mountpoint and create copies for everything that
> gets propagation from there (as we would do for rbind).
Why this prohib
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 07:46:59PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > 2. mount
> >
> > We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
> > vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:18:51PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> 2. mount
>
> We have a new vfsmount A and want to attach it to mountpoint somewhere in
> vfsmount B. If B does not belong to any p-node, everything is as usual; A
> doesn't become a member or slave of any p-node and is simply attach
41 matches
Mail list logo
