[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
    On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:49:35AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote:
    > > > There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a
    > > > restriction with union mounts.
    > >
    > > Bind mounts are a purely VFS level construct. Unionfs is, as the name
    > > implies, a filesystem. Last year at OLS, it seemed that a lot of people
    > > agreed that unioning is neither purely a fs construct, nor purely a vfs
    > > construct.
    > >
    > > I'm using Unionfs (and ecryptfs) as guinea pigs to make linux fs stacking
    > > friendly - a topic to be discussed at LSF in about a month.
    > And unionfs is the wrong thing do use for this. Unioning is a complex
    > namespace operation and needs to be implemented in the VFS or at least
    > needs a lot of help from the VFS. Getting namespace cache coherency
    > and especially locking right is imposisble with out that.

    What I meant was that I use them as an example for a linear and fanout
    stacking examples. While unioning itself is a complex operation, the general
    idea of one set of vfs objects (dentry, inode, etc.) pointing to several
    lower ones is very generic and applies to all fan-out stackable fs.

    Josef "Jeff" Sipek.

    Linux, n.:
    Generous programmers from around the world all join forces to help
    you shoot yourself in the foot for free.
    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: 2007-01-09 12:47    [W:0.021 / U:8.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site