>
> If we go for plan9 style namespaces, do we still need a unionfs?
> The only thing which unionfs offers over bind(2) is the ability to `modify'
> files on a read-only underlying mount.
bind is not recursive. union-binding on directory gives a different
behaviour of unlink() (underlying file resurfaces). IOW, they are
different animals with different uses. BTW, the usage you've mentioned is
*very* good thing to have - think of make(1) (union-mount atop of CD and
there we go). BTW, we'll have to invent a new name for
bind(2;Plan9 namespaces) - it clashes with the bind(2;BSD sockets)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/