[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100831192919.GB5759@shell>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:29:19 -0400
From: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jblunck@...e.de, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:18:11PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > My comment about set-theory unions being commutative set me thinking. I
> > really don't think "union" is the right name for this thing. There is
> > nothing about it which really fits that proper definition of a union.
> > whiteouts mean that even the list of names in a directory is not the union of
> > the lists of names in the upper and lower directories.
> > "overlay" is a much more accurate name. But union seems to be the name
> > that is most used. I wonder if it is too late to change that.
>
> We could call it overlayfs. People learn new names quickly :)
Union mounts was named "writable overlays" for one release in an
attempt to get away from the "arbitrary union of file systems" idea.
I think it helped, but went back to union mounts since it was more
familiar and made prettier function names.
The config option for union mounts says:
Union mounts allow you to mount a transparent writable layer over a
read-only file system, for example, an ext3 partition on a hard drive
over a CD-ROM root file system image.
-VAL
--
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