From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <20030303174133.15491.qmail@mail.dirac.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Keith Nash Subject: [9fans] Another namespace question Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:41:33 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7700e88a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a question about why namespaces were designed in the way that they were. The command bind path1 path2 where both path1 and path2 are directories, makes path2 a union directory consisting of path1 alone. So far, so good. Why was it decided that this command also does the following: (a) any union directory previously bound to path2 is automatically unmounted, and is found to have disappeared if the new union directory at path2 is unmounted (this is not the case for Lunix mount); *but*... (b) ...any union directory previously bound to a subdirectory of path2 is not unmounted. A possible reason for (a) is to clean up the namespace by removing binds that are invisible; but then why (b)? Keith.