From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Sick VFS question Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:55:18 -0800 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3E5BE646.80507@zytor.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Charles P. Wright" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ezk@cs.sunysb.edu Return-path: To: Ion Badulescu In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ion Badulescu wrote: > > Direct mounts would solve all these issues in a much more elegant way. We > already have overlay mounts, we already have bind mounts, all the elements > are in place to support direct mounts without much effort. > Yes, except for atomicity concerns. Anyway, I had a talk with Linus about this about an hour ago, and he suggested adding a notification mechanism to the namespace (mount) mechanism and do things at that level. It entails more kernel core hacking, but it would be cleaner in a whole lot of ways. I will look into it this evening. -hpa