From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: mount behavior question. Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:59:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1122591547.4715.193.camel@localhost> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Avantika Mathur , janak@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mike@waychison.com, Miklos Szeredi , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:8064 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261707AbVG1W7L (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:59:11 -0400 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6SMxAWY168388 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:59:10 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j6SMxAso430054 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:10 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6SMx9pv027290 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:59:09 -0600 To: Bryan Henderson In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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