[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:0.020 / U:5.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site