Re: Unionmount. Basic details

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:29:43PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> writes:

> >    settrans veth /hurd/unionfs veth veth,,eth-multiplexer
> 
> unionfs has option ``-u'' which tells it to include the underlying
> node in the list of the merged filesystems, so this command should be
> rewritten like
> 
>   settrans veth /hurd/unionfs -u veth,,eth-multiplexer

Ah, interesting.

> I think that doing in the way you suggest will not result in something
> useful, because when unionfs opens node ``veth'', this node will
> already be translated by unionfs itself, which means that unionfs will
> not have access to the underlying filesystem, as it was obviously
> intended.

Is that really so? That's not very useful behaviour... Though I can see
that it might be hard for unionfs to do handle it differently.

Anyways, I think we should be able to work around it, by using the
filter: veth,,--,,eth-multiplexer :-) (Might be protential for
deadlocks, though...)

-antrik-