[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Shaya Potter <> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
> > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <> wrote:
> >
> >> +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is
> >> +currently unsupported.
> >
> > Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under /mnt/union, I
> > am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/ and /c/d/? That I may only
> > alter stuff under /mnt/union?
> >
> > If so, that sounds like a significant limitation.
> haven't we been through this?

If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist. It's
useful for the developers to keep track of obvious and frequently-asked
questions such as this and to address them completely in the changelog
and/or documentation. Otherwise things just come around again and again,
as we see here.

> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-08 23:05    [W:0.300 / U:2.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site