On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Werner Almesberger wrote:
>
> 1) The old behaviour would have yielded /, /proc, /newroot, /proc
> 2) Only d_path would yield: /, /proc, /, /proc
> 3) My approach yields: 03:01/, 03:01/proc, /, /proc
d_path() can easily be made to yield something else: in particular, we
already have the "(deleted)" semantics in /proc/<pid>/fd to show that a
name is not actually necessarily valid, and the same goes for things that
are not actually reachable from the root.
I don't think device numbers are all that helpful. And in fact I think
that if it shows any of the "unattached" filesystems at all, it's probably
a bug in the first place - after the root hop, the old root should not
show up.
Finally, as to the umount / new system call issue: I really think that the
root hopping should be a special event, not a re-mount or a umount, but
more of a "global chroot()" system call. I agree with making it possible
to re-mount from user space, but I don't agree with overloading an
existing call that does something completely different.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST