On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Aug 24, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> On Aug 24, 2018, at 2:45 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The problem is that "exclusivity" isn't necessarily an easy thing to define. >>>> Take nfs4 and btrfs for example. They creating a backing superblock that the >>>> actual node is derived from (though in different ways). How do you define >>>> what "exclusive" means in their case? >>>> >>> >>> I would argue that “exclusive” means “semantically equivalent to getting a fully independent instance.” >> >> The only way to get semantically equivalent instance is to create a >> fully independent instance. See reconfigure (nee remount). >> >> > > Hmm. Is it that case in the current patchset that you can do CMD_CREATE and reconfigure the result and some *other* existing mount will change? If so, that’s rather unfriendly to users. Exactly. Thanks, Miklos
