[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1168291848.9853.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:30:48 -0500
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@...columbia.edu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, viro@....linux.org.uk, torvalds@...l.org,
mhalcrow@...ibm.com, David Quigley <dquigley@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST) Shaya Potter <spotter@...columbia.edu> wrote:
> > It's the same thing as modifying a block
> > device while a file system is using it. Now, when unionfs gets confused,
> > it shouldn't oops, but would one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its
> > backing store while its using it?
>
> There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a
> restriction with union mounts.
the difference is bind mounts are a vfs construct, while unionfs is a
file system.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists