|| ||Valerie Aurora <vaurora-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||Miklos Szeredi <miklos-AT-szeredi.hu> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype |
|| ||Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:29:19 -0400|
|| ||Neil Brown <neilb-AT-suse.de>, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
|| ||Article, Thread
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> > My comment about set-theory unions being commutative set me thinking. I
> > really don't think "union" is the right name for this thing. There is
> > nothing about it which really fits that proper definition of a union.
> > whiteouts mean that even the list of names in a directory is not the union of
> > the lists of names in the upper and lower directories.
> > "overlay" is a much more accurate name. But union seems to be the name
> > that is most used. I wonder if it is too late to change that.
> We could call it overlayfs. People learn new names quickly :)
Union mounts was named "writable overlays" for one release in an
attempt to get away from the "arbitrary union of file systems" idea.
I think it helped, but went back to union mounts since it was more
familiar and made prettier function names.
The config option for union mounts says:
Union mounts allow you to mount a transparent writable layer over a
read-only file system, for example, an ext3 partition on a hard drive
over a CD-ROM root file system image.
to post comments)