lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

    On Jan 8 2007 14:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >Shaya Potter <spotter@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
    >>
    >> the difference is bind mounts are a vfs construct, while unionfs is a
    >> file system.
    >
    >Well yes. So the top-level question is "is this the correct way of doing
    >unionisation?".
    >I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until someone
    >comes along and implements unionisation at the VFS level, at which time
    >unionfs goes away.

    Not either. I *think* Jan Blunck wrote a pdf-paper about 'union mounts', i.e.
    the vfs construct you refer to. [
    http://www.free-it.org/archiv/talks_2005/paper-11254/paper-11254.pdf looks like
    it ]
    However, it's not duplicating a namespace, hence, unionfs also has a
    right to exist.


    >a) is unionfs a sufficiently useful stopgap to justify a merge and
    >
    >b) would an interim merge of unionfs increase or decrease the motivation
    > for someone to do a VFS implementation?
    >
    >I suspect the answer to b) is "increase": if unionfs proves to be useful
    >then people will be motivated to produce more robust implementations of the
    >same functionality. If it proves to not be very useful then nobody will
    >bother doing anything, which in a way would be a useful service.

    Fact is, when it's in, bugs could be shaken out. Though then I think what
    better AUFS could do.


    -`J'
    --
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-01-09 01:35    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans