On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 01:40:10PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:50:28PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > > But yes, this thing with stacking them over the same point needs to be fixed.
> > > IMO "replacement" semantics is the right way
> >
> > I don't like replacement. The number of mounts should equal
> > the number of umounts.
> > Just return EBUSY if mount is called with the same filesystem on
> > the same mount point (without the -o remount flag).
> > All else is allowed.
>
> That's certainly possible. However, consider the following: suppose we've
> done union-mounts. We have foo, bar and baz union-mounted on /quux. We
My point of view is rather different.
If a user has union-mounts then probably she knows what she is doing.
I'll leave finding the most suitable semantics to you.
But we must not have gazillions of people upgrading 2.2 to 2.4
complaining: mount is broken, umount is broken - I just unmounted
and it is still there! The
"Return EBUSY if mount is called with the same filesystem
on the same mount point (without the -o remount flag)"
is the minimum requirement on the kernel so that people with
old mount programs will not be very confused. Especially with
a GUI it is very easy to click twice on the "mount foo" button,
and nobody expects foo to be mounted twice.
It must go in before 2.4.
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST