"Hyper-Mount" option possible???
Not on list just throwing an idea out.
One thing that "bugs" me is if a given drive has more than one partion each partion has to be mounted seperatly.
With CDs this also means you can not mount "split" cds in full if you want to. Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option.
The way it could work is if you mount a full drive say "hdd" and have each partion mounted on a tree from the mount point
of the drive.
Robert L Martin
Just wishing i could mount the mac side of an AOL cd without mangling mounting normal cds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Followup to: <[email protected]> By author: Robert L Martin <[email protected]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Quoted 11 lines
Not on list just throwing an idea out.
One thing that "bugs" me is if a given drive has more than one partion each partion has to be mounted seperatly.
With CDs this also means you can not mount "split" cds in full if you want to. Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option.
The way it could work is if you mount a full drive say "hdd" and have each partion mounted on a tree from the mount point
of the drive.
This sounds a lot like cdfs.
-hpa
Signature · 7 lines
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 7 lines · Robert L Martin
Not on list just throwing an idea out.
One thing that "bugs" me is if a given drive has more than one partion each partion has to be mounted seperatly.
With CDs this also means you can not mount "split" cds in full if you want to. Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option.
This would also make it easier to mount media that only have one partition. For example, some of my Zip disks have to be mounted as "sdb", some as "sdb1", and some as "sdb4", depending on what OS formatted it.
I think this might also be good for multisession CDs, though I'm not really sure how they are currently handled.
Quoted 3 lines
The way it could work is if you mount a full drive say "hdd" and have each partion mounted on a tree from the mount point
of the drive.
This would require mount to check for a partition table first, since "hdd" could either mean "hdd as a partitionless device" or "all devices on hdd". This check could probably even be done in user space, along with "hyper-mount". Maybe someone has done it already; I'll have to check freshmeat :)
Signature · 6 lines
Mark McClelland [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 22 lines · Mark W. McClelland
Quoted 7 lines · Robert L Martin
Not on list just throwing an idea out.
One thing that "bugs" me is if a given drive has more than one partion each partion has to be mounted seperatly.
With CDs this also means you can not mount "split" cds in full if you want to. Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option.This would also make it easier to mount media that only have one partition. For example, some of my Zip disks have to be mounted as "sdb", some as "sdb1", and some as "sdb4", depending on what OS formatted it.
I think this might also be good for multisession CDs, though I'm not really sure how they are currently handled.
Quoted 3 lines
The way it could work is if you mount a full drive say "hdd" and have each partion mounted on a tree from the mount point
of the drive.
Quoted 5 lines
This would require mount to check for a partition table first, since "hdd" could either mean "hdd as a partitionless device" or "all devices on hdd". This check could probably even be done in user space, along with "hyper-mount". Maybe someone has done it already; I'll have to check freshmeat :)
This looks like a job for a script. I.e. no kernel change necessary.
The script could go something like this:
1. User invokes with "hypermount sdb" in case of the sdb device
2. The script creates a /mnt/sdb directory
3. The script creates a /mnt/sdb/sdb<n> directory for each sdb1, sdb2,... found in /dev
4. /dev/sdb1 is then mounted on /mnt/sdb/sdb1 and so on.
You may also want some checks that the device isn't mounted already, remove subdirectories that didn't mount (error return from the "mount" command)
A "hyper-umount sdb" would simply umount every directory under /mnt/sdb/
This isn't really a kernel issue, you may want to discuss this with distribution
maintainers instead.
Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
** Reply to message from Robert L Martin <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:55:38 -0500
Quoted 2 lines
Soo Given that Super-Mount is already taken, How about (in 2.5??) hashing out a Hypermount option.
How about calling it "multi-mount"? I think it's more accurate.
Signature · 8 lines
Timur Tabi - [email protected] Interactive Silicon - http://www.interactivesi.com When replying to a mailing-list message, please direct the reply to the mailing list only. Don't send another copy to me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/