From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Viro To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Cc: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Subject: Re: [9fans] Private Namespaces for Linux In-Reply-To: <01112013220003.13061@snaresland> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:08:11 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 25901ef4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > On Tuesday 20 November 2001 10:28, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Is the subject incorrect though? It's cool to have a port of the Plan > > 9 FS protocol to Linux (et al), but it seems to me that would be a > > different task from private namespaces. > > I put private namespaces in too. I.e. I put in system call to support Plan-9 > style session, attach, mount, and then have the VFS read/write etc. go to a > VFS with plan9-style operations, communicating 9p to a server (I only have > two: a memfs and a ufs). Union mounts work in the plan 9 style. I also have a > library which does the "hijack function calls to libc" so that you have it > from user mode on other OSes. Ugh. To start with, namespaces had been available on 2.4 since at least March. See patches on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/ - namespaces-* is that + related VFS cleanups. Currently most of that is merged into the main tree. Remaining stuff will go in when I'll somewhat clean the backlog on other things. And it's a real thing - it isn't limited to #M combinations, any fs can be used. 9pfs is definitely very welcome, though. BTW, could you use the standard meanings of terms? Filesystem is filesystem, whether it's disk-based or completely syntetic. VFS is more or less an equivalent of chan.c and sysfile.c - what you had described looks rather like devmnt.c with some strange additions.