Hi, Russ! Firs of all -- thank a lot for answering all of my question in a very detailed manner. I really do appreciate it! Now, if you don't mind, I still have just one question left:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:55 -0800, Russ Cox wrote: > > That's very similar to what I referred to as a "synthetic filesystem > > doing the right stuff". But as I pointed out in my original email > > this approach has a downside of never exporting these mounts > > into the namespace of the process that caused them. > > You'd have the program export its own name space, > a delicate but not impossible dance. Then its mounts > would be exported too. That's pretty much what I'm after. Now, the question I still have is this: was there a clear reason behind deciding not letting the kernel help with something like that? I would imagine that making '#p'/<proc id>/ns writable and receptive to messages of exact same format that is being output right now (plus an 'unmount X Y' message) would be a very natural thought in a Plan9 environment. Yet, it wasn't implemented that way which makes me believe that I do (as usual) overlook something obvious here. Please give me a hint to what it might be that renders the idea as a bad one. Thanks, Roman. P.S. Thinking for a couple more minutes makes me believe that a writable '#p'/<proc id>/ns might even be used to implement mount/bind syscall. Which, on the surface, would make it even more appealing.
