On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:40 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:23:23AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > Anyway, starting with just introducing the alt namespace without > > unification seems to be a good first step. If that turns out to be > > workable, we can revisit unification later. > > Start with coming up with answers to the questions on semantics > upthread. To spare you the joy of digging through the branches > of that thread, how's that for starters? > > "Can those suckers be passed to > ...at() as starting points? No. > Can they be bound in namespace? No. > Can something be bound *on* them? No. > What do they have for inodes > and what maintains their inumbers (and st_dev, while we are at > it)? Irrelevant. Can be some anon dev + shared inode. The only attribute of an attribute that I can think of that makes sense would be st_size, but even that is probably unimportant. > Can _they_ have secondaries like that (sensu Swift)? Reference? > Is that a flat space, or can they be directories?" Yes it has a directory tree. But you can't mkdir, rename, link, symlink, etc on anything in there. Thanks, Miklos
