Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v16)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> > Al and Linus,
> >
> > Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
> 
> Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
> the other alternatives are worse. Let's just plan on getting this
> thing done with.
> 
> Al, I realize you may not love this, but can you please give this a
> look? People clearly want to use it. In particular the new interfaces,
> like the inode ops open function with dentry passed in or whatever?
> The changes outside of overlayfs looked fine to me.

I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow.  FWIW, I was not too happy with
it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
thing.

I *have* looked at unionmount lately, and the recent modifications dhowells
is doing there are closing most of my problems with that; on the other hand,
there's no fundamental reason why both can't get merged.  Hell, might as
well resurrect aufs, while we are at it...

union-like things are actually on top of my "things to deal with this cycle"
list, closely folowed by rework of ->readdir().

Miklos, two points:
	* I would very much prefer to deal with that (as well as unionmount and
aufs) as git branches _expected_ to be reordered/rebased/folded/mutilated/etc.
while we are sorting all that stuff out.  For now, let's base them on -rc1.
I expect that vfs.git will grow common stem, with bits and pieces of those
guys getting gradually pulled into it, at which point(s) the rest will be
rebased.
	* what Linus just said about bisectablity
Oh, and the third one - I still owe you a bottle of your choice for sorting
the atomic_open shite out.  Is there any chance you'll be able to attend
LSFS this year?