|| ||Josef Sipek <jsipek-AT-fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>|
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation|
|| ||Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:25:16 -0500|
|| ||Shaya Potter <spotter-AT-cs.columbia.edu>,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek-AT-cs.sunysb.edu>,
hch-AT-infradead.org, viro-AT-ftp.linux.org.uk, torvalds-AT-osdl.org,
mhalcrow-AT-us.ibm.com, David Quigley <dquigley-AT-fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>,
Erez Zadok <ezk-AT-cs.sunysb.edu>|
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:19:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist.
Good point. I'll add it for next time.
> > It's the same thing as modifying a block
> > device while a file system is using it. Now, when unionfs gets confused,
> > it shouldn't oops, but would one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its
> > backing store while its using it?
> There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a
> restriction with union mounts.
Bind mounts are a purely VFS level construct. Unionfs is, as the name
implies, a filesystem. Last year at OLS, it seemed that a lot of people
agreed that unioning is neither purely a fs construct, nor purely a vfs
I'm using Unionfs (and ecryptfs) as guinea pigs to make linux fs stacking
friendly - a topic to be discussed at LSF in about a month.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
- Edsger Dijkstra
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)