From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 9345 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2020 23:57:40 -0000 Received: from ewsd.inri.net (107.191.116.128) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 20 Dec 2020 23:57:40 -0000 Received: from h4.fbrelay.privateemail.com ([131.153.2.45]) by ewsd; Sun Dec 20 18:52:59 -0500 2020 Received: from MTA-06-3.privateemail.com (mta-06.privateemail.com [68.65.122.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by h3.fbrelay.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB4D4800CC for <9front@9front.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:52:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from MTA-06.privateemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by MTA-06.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3050E60059 for <9front@9front.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 18:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.20.151.207]) by MTA-06.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 30FD960058 for <9front@9front.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2020 23:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2020 15:51:31 -0800 From: Anthony Martin To: 9front@9front.org Message-ID: References: <2B00BA68FFBEF791E1A7F8173F3F4257@eigenstate.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2B00BA68FFBEF791E1A7F8173F3F4257@eigenstate.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: ISO-certified ISO-certified template self-signing frontend Subject: [9front] Re: RFNOMNT vs unmount Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk > This can be done by treating cmount() almost like a union, > but putting a flag within the union so that names() stops > traversing the union early -- 'm->shadow'; unmount can > then prune just the mounts with an newer 'freeze depth' > than the current rfork depth. You should make the change in your own kernel if you have a need for it. Then, after a few weeks or more, let us know what the consequences were. At that point we can have a better discussion. For example, one of my small experiments involves removing a special case in namec, disallowing #/ from being attached, and manually setting up the first attach in userinit. It's a small but subtle change so I want to let it brew for a while to see if there are any surprises. (One of the things I've come to appreciate most about Plan 9 over the last thirteen years is how amenable it is to experimentation by a single person: it's small enough so that anyone can have their own.) Cheers, Anthony