lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
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.

-
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 11:31    [W:0.175 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site