[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130315051322.GX21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:13:23 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org, apw@...onical.com,
nbd@...nwrt.org, neilb@...e.de, jordipujolp@...il.com,
ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
sedat.dilek@...glemail.com, mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v17)
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:09:14PM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> If so, it has a big disadvantage for the layer-fs (or branch-fs) to have
> to implement a new method for whiteout.
>
> Overlayfs implements whiteout as symlink+xattr which consumes an
> inode. And you don't like it, right?
> What I showed is another generic approach without xattr where the new
> method to whiteout is unnecessary.
I'm yet to see the reason that would make implementing that method a big
disadvantage, TBH...
--
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