F15: ugly behavior of "df"

[Karel Zak]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:09:08AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 07:09 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> 
> > Well what benefit(s) does the new 'df' provide, is it worth all the pain
> > it brings?
> > 
> 
>   I concur - the current df behavior is well .. goofy :-) - however this
> may be tricky to fix in the new world - but should be fixed.
> 
>   If this behavior is somehow desirable it would be preferable to  make
> it an option (like df --full or whatever) and make the default something
> more sensible.
> 
>   That said, it may be tricky in the new world;
> 
>    where can you retrieve the info about a mount being a bind mount ?
> How can you push the chrooted bind mounts into being less obtrusive (or
> even optional, --show-chrooted-mounts)
> 
>   /proc/mounts does not seem to distinguish bind mounts - so this may
> have to be a kernel change and perhaps adding /proc/mounts/bind and
> moving bind mounts 1 level down - this is not an area I know a lot about
> however, so I'll leave this to the real experts.

 I've already talked about it in this list... "bind" is operation, not
 state of any mountpoint. Something like /proc/mounts/bind does not
 make sense from kernel's point of view.

 On Linux arbitrary filesystem could be mounted to more than one place 
 in VFS -- our userspace utils have to accept this fact...

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak at redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com