Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:55:54 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: David Howells <dhowells@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
       Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS autmounter support v2
Message-ID: <20030619145554.GF6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20030618205945.GD6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3283.1056016010@warthog.warthog>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3283.1056016010@warthog.warthog>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 997
Lines: 21

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:46:50AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
 
> Besides, going back to your original argument, I think you make an invalid
> assertion:
> 
> 	Namespaces are completely unrelated - I have them set for two
> 	different users that happen to need some common files, but otherwise
> 	have very different environments.
> 
> They are not quite completely unrelated. The only way (or so it seems) to get
> a new namespace is to derive one by way of CLONE_NS. This clones the namespace
> of the parent, and so the child's namespace then should have all the features
> of the parent's namespace _UNTIL_ at such time the child or one of its
> descendents rearranges the topology!

And how the fuck do you "rearrange topology" with your patch?!?
-
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/