Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:11:19 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: FS Unions |
| |
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > If we go for plan9 style namespaces, do we still need a unionfs? > The only thing which unionfs offers over bind(2) is the ability to `modify' > files on a read-only underlying mount.
bind is not recursive. union-binding on directory gives a different behaviour of unlink() (underlying file resurfaces). IOW, they are different animals with different uses. BTW, the usage you've mentioned is *very* good thing to have - think of make(1) (union-mount atop of CD and there we go). BTW, we'll have to invent a new name for bind(2;Plan9 namespaces) - it clashes with the bind(2;BSD sockets)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |