From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [RFC] shared subtrees Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:32:06 -0500 Message-ID: <20050117193206.GH24830@fieldses.org> References: <20050113221851.GI26051@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <41EC0466.9010509@sun.com> <20050117190028.GF24830@fieldses.org> <41EC1253.8080902@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from dsl093-002-214.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.2.214]:12944 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262851AbVAQTcM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:32:12 -0500 To: Mike Waychison Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41EC1253.8080902@sun.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:30:27PM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote: > Well, if I understand it correctly: > > (assuming /foo is vfsmount A) > > $> mount --make-shared /foo > > will make A->A > > $> mount --bind /foo /foo/bar > > will create a vfsmount B based off A, but because A is in a p-node, > A->B, B->A. > > Then, we attach B to A in the vfsmount tree, but because A->B in the > propagation tree, B also gets a vfsmount C added on dentry 'bar'. > Recurse ad infinitum. > > Make sense? Yes, but couldn't the whole thing be avoided if we just agreed that the propagation wasn't set up till after B was attached to A? --b.