viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Tue, May 06, 2003 17:02:19 +0200:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 04:34:59PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote:
> > viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Tue, May 06, 2003 16:30:26 +0200:
> > > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:04:35PM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote:
> > > > i just came over this patch, and wondered why is it missing in
> > > > both 2.4 and 2.5 (the code in do_rename is identical in both
> > > > kernels).
> > > >
> > > > Are such renames really not allowed, or was it just fixed
> > > > differently?
> > >
> > > Such remames are _deliberately_ not allowed.
> >
> > because that would be against semantics of a mounted filesystem?
> > (which, in turn, would break something)
>
> Binding a subtree creates a sandbox of sorts. You can bind a bunch of
> subtrees of the same fs into namespace and have normal protection
> against rename and link between them.
sounds useful, even though i can't think of real example of such a use :)
Thank you, that clarifies the behaviour, at least to me.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:26 EST