[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109094935.GA12406@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:49:35 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Shaya Potter <spotter@...columbia.edu>,
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, 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@...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