From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d5626c858c99f5db078aa175c957102@plan9.bell-labs.com>
From: David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Another namespace question
In-Reply-To: <20030303174133.15491.qmail@mail.dirac.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-bnwjqarqsmrxjckjjzlpmihklq"
Date: Mon,  3 Mar 2003 13:14:34 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 77160d1e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-bnwjqarqsmrxjckjjzlpmihklq
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The easy answer is that it was easier to implement.  The per-process
mount table knows nothing about the hierarchical structure of
the bindings.  When you bind something, it is to a file, not to a
path.  If you later bind to something higher in the tree, we
don't know enough to change the lower binding.

I do think that (b) is confusing.
--upas-bnwjqarqsmrxjckjjzlpmihklq
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Mon Mar  3 12:44:18 EST 2003
Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Mon Mar  3 12:44:16 EST 2003
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.6.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id A60F119ABF; Mon,  3 Mar 2003 12:44:05 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from mail.dirac.net (unknown [151.196.211.14])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with SMTP id 189E819AAF
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon,  3 Mar 2003 12:43:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 15492 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Mar 2003 17:41:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20030303174133.15491.qmail@mail.dirac.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Keith Nash <kjn9@citizenearth.com>
Subject: [9fans] Another namespace question
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: 3 Mar 2003 17:41:33 -0000

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.

--upas-bnwjqarqsmrxjckjjzlpmihklq--