lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PULL for 3.18] overlay filesystem v24
Date

David Howells:
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose overlayfs for inclusion into 3.18.
> >
> > Al, would you mind giving it a review?
> >
> > Git tree is here:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git overlayfs.current
>
> Tested-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

Does it mean overlayfs passed all your unionmount-testsuite? And does
the test suite contain tests for "inode-based" union? For example,
- read(2) may get the obsoleted filedata (fstat(2) for metadata too).
- fcntl(F_SETLK) may be broken by copy-up.
- inotify may not work when it refers to the file before being
copied-up.
- unnecessary copy-up may happen, for example mmap(MAP_PRIVATE) after
open(O_RDWR).
- exporting via NFS and fhandle systemcalls will not work.

A few releases ago, OFD file-lock was introduced to improve the
behaviour of POSIX lock. POSIX lock has made users confused and I am
afraid that the similar story will come up because of the "name-based"
union behaviour. Of course the story is not limited to the file-lock.

If I remember correctly, are you the one who consitunes the development
of UnionMount? Is the development totally stopped?
Next paragraph is what I wrote several times.
AUFS is an "inode-based" stackable filesystem and solved them many years
ago. But I have to admit that AUFS is big. Yes it is grown up.
I don't stop including overlayfs into mainline, but if the development
of UnionMount is really stopped, then I'd ask people to consider merging
aufs as well as overlayfs.

http://aufs.sf.net

J. R. Okajima


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-30 07:41    [W:0.105 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site