On Tue, 24 May 2005, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > So your in favour of a bind mount behaving in a sense like a chroot. > > > > This I think I can do that but that's not how bind mount behaviour is > > defined in mount(8). Hence the discussion. > > > > What I would have trouble doing is maintaining two distinct trees > > of mount points which is in line with the definition. > > > > And there's also the question of recursive bind mounts???? > > You can always say in the manual: don't do that, or expect the > unexpected! > > > Oh yes Miklos, we haven't even started talking about submounts, each with > > its own map! Sorry, I'm sure you have enough to do already but I thought > > you might like to follow the discussion a little further. > > OK. Why are submounts special?
Simply because they increase the complexity of the issue. A new mount, a new daemon, new set of possible mounts completly seperate from the parent. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
