Re: mount behavior question.

[Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:44, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > I am not surprised when mounts on /mnt/1 do not propogate to /mnt/2/1
> > This is expected, and I am perfectly happy. Because the mount is
> > attempted on 'B' and 'B' has nobody to propogate to.
> > 
> > when mount on /mnt/2/1 (i.e on C at dentry 1) is attempted, I expect
> >  to see a new mount 'E' at that dentry. That is happening and
> > I am happy with it.
> > I also expect that the mount propogates to /mnt/1 too (i.e on 'A' at
> > dentry '1'). Because 'C' and 'A' have propogation setup.
> >  
> > But what I also expect to see is: the new mount 'F' at /mnt/1 ( mount A
> > at dentry 1) be obscured by the already existing mount on /mnt/1 i.e
> > mount 'B'.
> > 
> > And the reason I want the new mount at /mnt/1 (i.e 'F') obscured is that
> > the new mount is not done on 'B' but is done on 'A'.
> > 
> > The "most recent mount rule" makes 'B' obscured instead of 'F'
> > and I am expecting "the topmount visible rule" to be applicable
> > here which makes 'B' still visible and 'F' obscured. 
> 
> OK.  I'm beginning to get it :)
> 
> You want the propagated mount to be "tucked under" the existing mount.

exactly. I feel that is more intuitive. Remember the transparent
building with 3 story example that I gave in the first mail of this
thread. I am just asking for that natural behavior.
> 
> Well, that's conceivably a valid semantic for the propagation.  I'm
> not sure which I like better.  I think not hiding the propagated mount
> is more intuitive.

O!! well .. we still disagree. :)
RP
> 
> Miklos