Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > I don't want to have to try it before testing. However, what is worse,
> > is that you're telling me "mount -t bind" will be replaced by something
> > else, which I don't even know what it is.
> >
> > > should do it quite fine, no? Or C equivalent... Same goes for new API,
> > > except that there C equivalent is even simpler - mount("foo","foo","",
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > MS_MGC_VAL|MS_BIND, NULL) and check the return value. It will always fail
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> mount("old_place", "new_place", "", MS_MGC_VAL|MS_BIND, NULL) - no testing
> needed. On the kernel witout MS_BIND it will always fail. On the new one
> it will work, provided that both places exist, are either both directories
> or both non-directories and you are root. For the current API call would
> be mount("old_place", "new_place", "bind", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) - same
> situation, but messier code in fs/super.c.
>
> Is that OK with you? If you want some other indication that mechanism is
> in place - tell me what sort of indicator you want.
This is OK with me, *IF AND ONLY IF* we don't want to add to /etc/mtab,
or mess around with the locks mount(8) does... I refuse to code that
into autofs. The C equivalent is quite nice; however, it is rather
unfortunate from an autofs standpoint that the "both directories or both
non-directories" requirement exists (autofs don't have
"non-directories".)
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt- 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 - 21:00:26 EST