I see, but why the MS_MOVE? As I already tried to explain, a move is a little bit strange, you do not want to move the root.
Does the combination MS_BIND | MS_MOVE first do a bind, and moves that bind to the desired location?? If this is the case, it makes more sense. Stef 2011/8/23 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net>: > On Mon, 22.08.11 16:15, Stef Bon (stef...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Why the combination MS_BIND | MS_MOVE here?? >> A move is a little bit confucing, since a move of the root, while the >> subirectories are already mounted. >> It looks more a bit to make the new namespace consistent or something like >> that. >> >> Can someone explain this? > > Basically you have to specifiy MS_BIND for all calls where you want to > change the bind mount, not the superblock. > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
