|From:||Valerie Aurora <vaurora-AT-redhat.com>|
|To:||Miklos Szeredi <miklos-AT-szeredi.hu>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype|
|Date:||Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:29:19 -0400|
|Cc:||Neil Brown <neilb-AT-suse.de>, linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, viro-AT-zeniv.linux.org.uk, jblunck-AT-suse.de, hch-AT-infradead.org|
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. -VAL
Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds