Re: Feature request, "create on mount" to create mount point directory on mount, implied remove on unmount

[jon]

On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 15:29 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:48:28PM +0100, jon wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but like I say automount is normally based on an event. I am simply
> > talking about a flag/switch that can be used for optional implied
> > mkdir,rmdir around calls to mount() unount() - nothing more, nothing
> > less !
> 
> umount(2) is not the only way for mount to detached from a mountpoint.
> There's exit(2) as well - when the last process in a namespace exits, it
> gets dissolved.  What should happen upon those?  Even more interesting question
> is what should happen if you do such mount, then clone a process into a new
> namespace and have it exit.  Should _that_ rmdir the hell out of that
> mountpoint (presumably detaching everything mounted on it in all namespaces)?
> 

I should have titled it "Feature request from a simple minded user"

I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.  

When I learnt *nix it did not have "name spaces" in reference to process
tables.  I understand the theory of VM a bit, the model in my mind each
"machine", be that one kernel on a true processor or a VM instance has
"a process table" and "a file descriptor table" etc - anything more is
beyond my current level of knowledge.

Containers for example are something I dont understand in two ways. I
dont truely understand the theory, I also dont understand why in a world
of true VM  someone would want to make something as complex as linux
even more complex using containers for what seems little or no benefit.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/