xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: double mounting and other strangeness.

To: pac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: double mounting and other strangeness.
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 28 Jan 2002 10:59:10 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20020127205023.A14726@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20020127205023.A14726@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ahh...that's not good, but yes, it is from the same feature. 

On Sun, 2002-01-27 at 20:50, pac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:56:56AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >   Is there any legitimate reason you would want to do this? I dont
> > > want to scream at them if there is a good reason for it. What is the
> > > opinion of the FS developers here?
> > 
> > It's for example useful for chroot. You can mount a single file system
> > in multiple chroots.  There is also the related feature of mount
> --bind
> > which allows to do the same thing for directories and files. Again
> > it is useful for chroots.
> 
>   Yes, but in my case, i had 2 filesystems mounted on the SAMe mount
> point.
> Here is an inherent ambiguity in which filesystem i am actually
> write/reading
> from. 
> 
> -Phil Carinhas
> --
>  .--------------------------------------------------------.
>  | Dr. Philip A. Carinhas       | pac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx      |
>  | Fortuitous Technologies Inc. | http://fortuitous.com   |
>  | Linux Consulting & Training  | Tel : 1-512-467-2154    |
>  `--------------------------------------------------------'
-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-698-7250
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Latin Proverb

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>