Re: bind() and mount() confusion

[philw@plan9.bell-labs.com]

>Extensions to the slash-rooted tree are done by mounting a user-level
>thread that serves some subtree.  Similarly, extensions to the sharp-
>rooted tree are done by mounting a kernel-level thread that serves
>the subtree; all of these threads are mounted magically by the kernel.
>(I haven't tried to see if one can mount user-level threads in the
>sharp-rooted tree; it'd be an interesting experiment, but it ought to
>work.)
this is incorrect. A process has a namespace which may be
added to using mount or by binding a # device. The # is
simply an escape into a special area of file systems
provided by the kernel. Neither a bind nor a mount ever
result in a new thread being created.

User processes serving file systems via exportfs will create kernel
threads to service incoming rpc's otherwise the namespace is unrelated
to processes.

phil

---

• Prev by Date: Re: bind() and mount() confusion
• Next by Date: Re: bind() and mount() confusion
• Prev by thread: Re: bind() and mount() confusion
• Next by thread: Re: bind() and mount() confusion
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread