* Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd)
[not found] <Pine.GSO.4.21.0210132106460.9247-100000@steklov.math.psu.edu>
@ 2002-10-14 1:09 ` Alexander Viro
2002-10-14 2:42 ` Hans Reiser
2002-10-14 16:41 ` Rob Landley
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-10-14 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Nick LeRoy, Hans Reiser, Martin J. Bligh, linux-kernel
> Logically, the second /var mount should be "mount --move /initrd/var /var",
> followed by "umount /initrd" to free up the initrd memory. Right now it's
> doing "mount -n --bind /initrd/var /var", because /etc is a symlink into /var
> (has to remain editable, you see), and this way the information about which
> partition var actually is can be kept in one place. (This is an
> implementation detail: I could have used volume labels instead.)
>
> The point is, right now I can't free the initial ramdisk because it has an
> active mount point under it..
umount -l
mount --move
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd)
2002-10-14 1:09 ` The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd) Alexander Viro
@ 2002-10-14 2:42 ` Hans Reiser
2002-10-14 2:48 ` Alexander Viro
2002-10-14 16:41 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hans Reiser @ 2002-10-14 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Viro; +Cc: Rob Landley, Nick LeRoy, Martin J. Bligh, linux-kernel
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
>>Logically, the second /var mount should be "mount --move /initrd/var /var",
>>followed by "umount /initrd" to free up the initrd memory. Right now it's
>>doing "mount -n --bind /initrd/var /var", because /etc is a symlink into /var
>>(has to remain editable, you see), and this way the information about which
>>partition var actually is can be kept in one place. (This is an
>>implementation detail: I could have used volume labels instead.)
>>
>>The point is, right now I can't free the initial ramdisk because it has an
>>active mount point under it..
>>
>>
>
>umount -l
>mount --move
>
>
>
>
>
>
It seems Linux evolves faster than I can track. These are nice features.:)
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd)
2002-10-14 2:42 ` Hans Reiser
@ 2002-10-14 2:48 ` Alexander Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-10-14 2:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans Reiser; +Cc: Rob Landley, Nick LeRoy, Martin J. Bligh, linux-kernel
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> >umount -l
> >mount --move
> >
> It seems Linux evolves faster than I can track. These are nice features.:)
Why, thank you...
They had been there for a year or so, actually - (-l first, then --move).
Both were done as side effects of core cleanups that allowed per-process
namespaces - real work was in massaging infrastructure into the sane
shape, features came pretty much for free...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd)
2002-10-14 1:09 ` The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd) Alexander Viro
2002-10-14 2:42 ` Hans Reiser
@ 2002-10-14 16:41 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-14 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Viro; +Cc: Nick LeRoy, Hans Reiser, Martin J. Bligh, linux-kernel
On Sunday 13 October 2002 09:09 pm, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Logically, the second /var mount should be "mount --move /initrd/var
> > /var", followed by "umount /initrd" to free up the initrd memory. Right
> > now it's doing "mount -n --bind /initrd/var /var", because /etc is a
> > symlink into /var (has to remain editable, you see), and this way the
> > information about which partition var actually is can be kept in one
> > place. (This is an implementation detail: I could have used volume
> > labels instead.)
> >
> > The point is, right now I can't free the initial ramdisk because it has
> > an active mount point under it..
>
> umount -l
> mount --move
Cool. Thanks.
Rob
(Serves me right for still having Red Hat 7.2 on my laptop. Old man pages.
Now I've got to find a new project to force myelf to learn VFS internals. Oh
well... :)
(Nit-pick: the man page description of umount -l doesn't look like it'd help
with the removable media problem, I.E. "umount --gimme_my_cd_back_NOW", but
the code may disagree, and the discussion's already turned up a 2.4 patch
from Tirgran via Hugh Dickens, so I'll shut up now. :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-14 21:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.GSO.4.21.0210132106460.9247-100000@steklov.math.psu.edu>
2002-10-14 1:09 ` The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA)) (fwd) Alexander Viro
2002-10-14 2:42 ` Hans Reiser
2002-10-14 2:48 ` Alexander Viro
2002-10-14 16:41 ` Rob Landley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).