Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932377AbVKHPzn (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965101AbVKHPzn (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:43 -0500 Received: from 238-193.adsl.pool.ew.hu ([193.226.238.193]:16914 "EHLO dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932308AbVKHPzm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:55:42 -0500 To: linuxram@us.ibm.com CC: miklos@szeredi.hu, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: <1131464926.5400.234.camel@localhost> (message from Ram Pai on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:48:46 -0800) Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/18] shared mount handling: bind and rbind References: <1131464926.5400.234.camel@localhost> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:55:04 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 810 Lines: 25 > No. As explained in the same earlier threads; without this change the > behavior of shared-subtrees leads to inconsistency and confusion in some > scenarios. > > Under the premise that no application should depend on this behavior > (most-recent-mount-visible v/s top-most-mount-visible), The strongest argument against was that mount foo .; umount . would no longer be a no-op. > Al Viro permitted this change. And this is certainly the right > behavior. Which is a contradiction in term, since you are saying that applications _do_ depend on it. Miklos - 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/