On 08/02/2011 11:18 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:04:06AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> I am not sure either, but I still believe my proposal is superior to >> write-to-a-file specifically. Writing to a file, be it in proc, sys, >> or wherever, leaves a window of opportunity open between mounting a >> filesystem and limiting its caches. Doing it on mount is atomic. >> >> Effectively, I see this limit as a property of a particular instance >> of a mounted filesystem. Since all properties of a filesystem are >> specified during mount, this becomes a natural extension. > > The trouble is, dentry tree is fundamentally a property of superblock. > It's shared between *all* instances of that fs in all mount trees... And how is it different from any fs-specific options, like the ones extX have, for instance ? Many of them seem to operate on a superblock. If you mount a superblock somewhere, you can tweak specifics about its operation. If you mount it somewhere else, the assumption is you know what you're doing. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
