* 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).