On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:44, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > I am not surprised when mounts on /mnt/1 do not propogate to /mnt/2/1 > > This is expected, and I am perfectly happy. Because the mount is > > attempted on 'B' and 'B' has nobody to propogate to. > > > > when mount on /mnt/2/1 (i.e on C at dentry 1) is attempted, I expect > > to see a new mount 'E' at that dentry. That is happening and > > I am happy with it. > > I also expect that the mount propogates to /mnt/1 too (i.e on 'A' at > > dentry '1'). Because 'C' and 'A' have propogation setup. > > > > But what I also expect to see is: the new mount 'F' at /mnt/1 ( mount A > > at dentry 1) be obscured by the already existing mount on /mnt/1 i.e > > mount 'B'. > > > > And the reason I want the new mount at /mnt/1 (i.e 'F') obscured is that > > the new mount is not done on 'B' but is done on 'A'. > > > > The "most recent mount rule" makes 'B' obscured instead of 'F' > > and I am expecting "the topmount visible rule" to be applicable > > here which makes 'B' still visible and 'F' obscured. > > OK. I'm beginning to get it :) > > You want the propagated mount to be "tucked under" the existing mount.
exactly. I feel that is more intuitive. Remember the transparent building with 3 story example that I gave in the first mail of this thread. I am just asking for that natural behavior. > > Well, that's conceivably a valid semantic for the propagation. I'm > not sure which I like better. I think not hiding the propagated mount > is more intuitive. O!! well .. we still disagree. :) RP > > Miklos - 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
