On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:40:01 +0800
Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> What I suggested is to remove these lines:
>
> if (st.st_dev == rootdev) {
> // Show usage, it says new root must be a mountpoint
> bb_show_usage();
> }
>
> Because mount(..., MS_MOVE) will do the same check before moving the mount
>
On Friday, August 2, 2019, 阿保 純一 wrote:
>> Speaking of, since we are now overmounting the root before zapping the
>> initramfs, I wonder if we can remove one check about whether the new root
>> is a mount point (this saves code size; mount() would fail with EINVAL in
>> that case).
> At least, I
On Friday, July 19, 2019, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
>
> There's side benefit for this patch: In case that overmount fails, we can
have
> a rootfs kept intact (instead of almost destroyed).
>
Correction. It's just a side effect, not a "benefit" worth talking about.
Speaking of, since we are now
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:27 PM 阿保 純一 wrote:
>
> As the author said in the comment of util-linux/switch_root.c, current
> implementation leaves the mount point of new root-file-system without rmdir().
> As long as I experimented on a linux kernel, current process of "/" still
> points old
As the author said in the comment of util-linux/switch_root.c, current
implementation leaves the mount point of new root-file-system without rmdir().
As long as I experimented on a linux kernel, current process of "/" still
points old root-file-system even "/" is overmounted. So we can still
