From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: mount behavior question. Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1122584369.4715.169.camel@localhost> References: <20050725224417.501066000@localhost> <20050725225907.007405000@localhost> <1122500344.5037.171.camel@localhost> <1122536107.4715.45.camel@localhost> <1122562938.4715.71.camel@localhost> <1122574958.4715.108.camel@localhost> <1122581358.4715.152.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Avantika Mathur , mike@waychison.com, janak@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:42375 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262303AbVG1U7i (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:38 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6SKxbLW018199 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j6SKxbNI243210 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6SKxaI4029460 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:37 -0400 To: Miklos Szeredi In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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