From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264329AbUBKMeO (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:34:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264363AbUBKMeN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:34:13 -0500 Received: from 209-166-240-202.cust.walrus.com ([209.166.240.202]:54176 "EHLO ti3.telemetry-investments.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264329AbUBKMeK (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:34:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 07:33:52 -0500 From: "Bill Rugolsky Jr." To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user Message-ID: <20040211123352.GA32657@ti19.telemetry-investments.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Bill Rugolsky Jr." , viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040210113417.GD4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> <20040210170157.GA27421@kroah.com> <20040210171337.GK4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> <40291A73.7050503@nortelnetworks.com> <20040210192456.GB4814@tinyvaio.nome.ca> <40293508.1040803@nortelnetworks.com> <40293AF8.1080603@backtobasicsmgmt.com> <20040210203900.GA18263@ti19.telemetry-investments.com> <20040211011559.GA2153@kroah.com> <20040211075049.GJ21151@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040211075049.GJ21151@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 07:50:49AM +0000, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Doesn't work for what we want here: > > > > $ mkdir /tmp/a /tmp/b > > $ mount -t ramfs none /tmp/a > > $ touch /tmp/a/foo > > $ mount --move /tmp/a /tmp/b > > $ ls /tmp/b > > foo > > $ umount /tmp/a > > $ ls /tmp/b > > $ > > > > Hm, not nice :( > > Huh? Is that a bug report or just your guess at what would happen if you > tried the above? > > If it _does_ happen - we have a problem and I'd like to know which versions > have such bug. Ugh, /etc/mtab really ought to die. Anyway, with traditional /etc/mtab, mount --move produces: none on /tmp/a type ramfs (rw) /tmp/a on /tmp/b type none (rw) ln -sf /proc/self/mounts /etc/mtab and retry, it works fine: none on /tmp/b type ramfs (rw) I'll have a look at mount later today, if nobody else gets there first. -Bill