Re: [PATCH 0/4] Transparent Unionmount

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:04:08AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:54:59PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> 
> > Another topic for discussion was whether a non-transparent unionmount
> > should shut down the mountee on going away.
> 
> Actually, what I was discussing is whether non-transparent unionmount
> should go away when the mountee goes away.

Ah, I see... Sorry for having understood you wrong.

I'm inclined to think that a non-transparent unionmount should go away
when the mountee has been shut down, too, because unionmount makes
little sense without the mountee, be a transparent or a
non-transparent one.
 
> The question you are putting forward here is much easier to answer:
> 
> > I believe such functionality is necessary, because it is unionmount
> > who starts the mountee, so it bears some responsibility for its child
> > process.
> 
> Yes.

Great :-)

Regards,
scolobb