On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:23:10PM -0700, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >That assumes that everyone has the same stuff in the same places. I.e. > >that there is a universal tree with different subset hidden from > different > >processes. But that is obviously a wrong approach - e.g. it loses > ability > >to bind different stuff on the same place in different namespaces. > > Aren't you trying to boil another egg in my pot? In Linux today, everyone > (every process on the same Linux system, that is) has the same stuff in > the same place.
Incorrect. We have working namespaces right now and had them for quite a while. And no, they do not suffer from such braindamage. Usable right now and yes, I *do* use that. > I'm trying to propose an incremental improvement, and > relaxing that restriction isn't part of it. Funny, how that *introduces* the restriction you are talking about... > lifetime of the mount. But as between multiple processes on the same > system at the same time, yeah, the directory has one name. Care to experiment? Create a new namespace and do different bindings at the same place in old and new one. Or mount --move in either, etc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
