> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Kara writes:
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Kara writes:
> [...]
> > > Jan, all of it is duable: we can downgrade the f/s to readonly, grab
> > > various
> > > locks, search through various lists looking for open fd's and such, then
> > > decide if to allow the mount or not. And hopefully all of that can be
> > > done
> > > in a non-racy manner. But it feels just rather hacky and ugly to me. If
> > > this community will endorse such a solution, we'll be happy to develop it.
> > > But right now my impression is that if we posted such patches today, some
> > > people will have to wipe the vomit off of their monitors... :-)
> > I see :). To me it just sounds as if you want to do remount-read-only
> > for source filesystems, which is operation we support perfectly fine,
> > and after that create union mount. But I agree you cannot do quite that
> > since you need to have write access later from your union mount. So
> > maybe it's not so easy as I thought.
> > On the other hand, there was some effort to support read-only bind-mounts
> > of
> > read-write filesystems (there were even some patches floating around but
> > I don't think they got merged) and that should be even closer to what
> > you'd need...
>
> I didn't know about those patches, but yes, they do sound useful. I'm
> curious who needed such functionality before and why. If someone can point
> me to those patches, we can look into using them for Unionfs. Thanks.
Dave Hansen writes them. One of recent submissions starts for example at
http://openvz.org/pipermail/devel/2006-December/002543.html.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SuSE CR Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
