[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:0.021 / U:49.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site