|From:||Josef Sipek <jsipek-AT-fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>|
|To:||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation|
|Date:||Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:25:16 -0500|
|Cc:||Shaya Potter <spotter-AT-cs.columbia.edu>, "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek-AT-cs.sunysb.edu>, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, 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 construct. 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 telescopes. - Edsger Dijkstra - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds