From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:11:09 -0500 Message-ID: <42CBE67D.9000507@slaphack.com> References: <42CB1E12.2090005@namesys.com> <1740726161-BeMail@cr593174-a> <87hdf8zqca.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> <42CB7DE0.4050200@namesys.com> <42CBD7F6.2050203@slaphack.com> <20050706154349.5d6aa92c.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20050706154349.5d6aa92c.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Adrian Ulrich Cc: reiser@namesys.com, hubert@uhoreg.ca, agmsmith@rogers.com, ross.biro@gmail.com, vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, mrmacman_g4@mac.com, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, ltd@cisco.com, gmaxwell@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, zam@namesys.com, vs@thebsh.namesys.com, ndiller@namesys.com, vitaly@thebsh.namesys.com Adrian Ulrich wrote: >>so all we have left is the issue of whether using /meta costs us >>performance, or whether breaking POSIX to add a symlink (such as >>foo/...) really gives us that much more usability. > > > IMHO '/meta' isn't such a good idea, because a chrooted application > won't be able to use it. mount --bind. Is there a performance hit for having too many of those? mount --bind /meta/vfs/some/chroot /some/chroot/meta Also, maybe a separately-mounted /meta, maybe with something like '-o root=' I can't think of when you'd have a chrooted application that uses /meta, but wasn't written with /meta in mind, so as to have these mount commands in its init scripts.