[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [UNIONFS] 00/29 Unionfs and related patches pre-merge review (v2)
In message <>, Michael Halcrow writes:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:57:46AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
> Would the inclusion of Unionfs in mainline really slow down or damage
> the union mount effort? If not, then I think the pragmatic approach
> would be to make it available in mainline for all of the users who are
> already successfully running it today. We can then focus future
> efforts on the VFS-level modifications that address the remaining
> issues, limiting Unionfs in the future to only those problems that are
> best solved in a stacked filesystem layer.

Mike, this is indeed the pragmatic approach I've advocated: as the VFS would
come up with more unioning-related functionality, I could easily make use of
it in unionfs, thus shrinking the code base in unionfs (while keeping the
user API unchanged). In the end, what'll be left over is probably a smaller
standalone file system that offers the kind of features that aren't likely
to show up at the VFS level (e.g., a persistent cache of unified dir
contents, persistent inode numbers, whiteouts that work with any "obscure"
filesystem, and such).

> Mike


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 22:45    [W:0.057 / U:36.240 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site