[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
> In message <>, Jan Kara writes:
> > > In message <>, Jan Kara writes:
> [...]
> > > Jan, all of it is duable: we can downgrade the f/s to readonly, grab various
> > > locks, search through various lists looking for open fd's and such, then
> > > decide if to allow the mount or not. And hopefully all of that can be done
> > > in a non-racy manner. But it feels just rather hacky and ugly to me. If
> > > this community will endorse such a solution, we'll be happy to develop it.
> > > But right now my impression is that if we posted such patches today, some
> > > people will have to wipe the vomit off of their monitors... :-)
> > I see :). To me it just sounds as if you want to do remount-read-only
> > for source filesystems, which is operation we support perfectly fine,
> > and after that create union mount. But I agree you cannot do quite that
> > since you need to have write access later from your union mount. So
> > maybe it's not so easy as I thought.
> > On the other hand, there was some effort to support read-only bind-mounts of
> > read-write filesystems (there were even some patches floating around but
> > I don't think they got merged) and that should be even closer to what
> > you'd need...
> I didn't know about those patches, but yes, they do sound useful. I'm
> curious who needed such functionality before and why. If someone can point
> me to those patches, we can look into using them for Unionfs. Thanks.
Dave Hansen writes them. One of recent submissions starts for example at


Jan Kara <>
SuSE CR Labs
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: 2007-01-10 23:11    [W:0.091 / U:3.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site