Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I tend to think that this *should* fail using the new API. The semantics of > the second mount request are bizarre at best. You still have to support existing behaviour lest you break userspace. David
Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I tend to think that this *should* fail using the new API. The semantics of > the second mount request are bizarre at best. You still have to support existing behaviour lest you break userspace. David