Re: mount behavior question.

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

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:27, Bryan Henderson wrote:
> >Bryan, what would you expect the behavior to be when somebody mounts on
> >a directory what is already mounted over? 
> 
> Well, I've tried to beg the question.  I said I don't think it's 
> meaningful to mount over a directory; that one actually mounts at a name. 
> And that Linux's peculiar "mount over '.'" (which is in fact mounting over 
> a directory and not at a name) is weird enough that there is no natural 
> expectation of it except that it should fail.
> 
> But if I had to try to merge "mount over '.'" into as consistent a model 
> as possible with one of the two behaviors we've been discussing, I'd say 
> that "." stands for the name by which you looked up that directory in the 
> first place (so in this case, it's equivalent to mount ... /mnt).  And 
> that means I would expect the new mount to obscure the already existing 
> mount.

ok. maybe I am having some odd expectations here.
To me it still feels natural to tuck the mount under the earlier mount,
since you are not mounting on something which on the top, but you
are mounting  on top of something which is under(obscured).

RP


> 
> --
> Bryan Henderson                     IBM Almaden Research Center
> San Jose CA                         Filesystems