[systemd-devel] Question about nspawn.c

[Stef Bon]

I see, but why the MS_MOVE?

As I already tried to explain, a move is a little bit strange, you do
not want to move the root.

Does the combination MS_BIND | MS_MOVE first do a bind, and moves that
bind to the desired location?? If this is the case, it makes more
sense.

Stef


2011/8/23 Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net>:
> On Mon, 22.08.11 16:15, Stef Bon (stefbon at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Why the combination MS_BIND | MS_MOVE here??
>> A move is a little bit confucing, since a move of the root, while the
>> subirectories are already mounted.
>> It looks more a bit to make the new namespace consistent or something like that.
>>
>> Can someone explain this?
>
> Basically you have to specifiy MS_BIND for all calls where you want to
> change the bind mount, not the superblock.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
>