User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

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>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds