On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The whole situation is outside (both cases) because you can't
> > get the object in question without mount()...
>
> So you think that we don't need to be concerned with POSIX at all, because
> there's a mount() involved somewhere anyhow ?
No. Just that we are discussing semantics of setup that doesn't make any
sense without mount() - it's direct product of the thing. The whole "step
upwards" thing is about semantics of mount().
You would have a point if mount() would not require the existing mountpoint
- then it would be an operation that modifies _link_ behaviour. However,
it operates on object, not on the name. So valid description is "if
result of lookup is a mountpoint you must go upwards", not "if the name of
component is the name mountpoint you should go to the root of mounted tree
instead of doing lookup".
IANAStandardsL, but the whole thing is completely outside of POSIX scope -
it's part of mount() semantics, as all other things regarding moves from
mountpoint to covering and other way round.
-
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 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST