>> Perhaps, but that's equally true of every other mount operation >> (except, to a partial extent, union mounts). Why would mount_mfs >> get special treatment? I don't see any chdir call in, for example, >> mount_ffs.
> mount_ffs applies the mount system call and exits. > mount_mfs forks a background process that has the "memory disk" > mapped and that terminates when you umount. > While the chdir() isn't necessary, it avoids keeping the current > directory busy. Oh! Thank you. Yes, that makes sense. I think it should be done _after_ the mount() call, though, or else the path specified should first be converted into an absolute path if it isn't already. My use case amounted to "mount_mfs -s 8192 swap foo", "cd foo", and do stuff. This of course breaks because mount_mfs chdir()s to / first, so it tries to mount on /foo, not on `pwd`/foo. > mount does a realpath() to resolve relative mount paths, not sure > since when.. You're talking about mount(8), not mount(2), right? Arguably mount_mfs should do the same, for consistency if nothing else. I'm not sure whether I think the mount table should have "foo" or `pwd`/foo when relative "foo" is specified. I can see arguments each way, though at the moment I'm inclined towards the absolute path. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
