Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:11:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:11:12 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:41726 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:10:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:10:48 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: John R Lenton cc: Peter Samuelson , Wakko Warner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: OK to mount multiple FS in one dir? In-Reply-To: <20010207035959.A2223@grulic.org.ar> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, John R Lenton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 12:25:10AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > > > [Wakko Warner] > > > I have a question, why was this idea even considered? > > > > Al Viro likes Plan9 process-local namespaces. He seems to be trying to > > move Linux in that direction. In the past year he has been hacking the > > semantics of filesystems and mounting, probably with namespaces as an > > eventual goal, and this is one of the things that has fallen out of the > > implementation. > > Aren't "translucid" mounts the idea behind this? Nope. Completely different beast - bindings have nothing to layered filesystems. I.e. if we bind /foo to /bar then /foo/barf and /bar/barf are the same object. Translucent-type would have one of them redirecting all requests to another. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/