[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200613143854.GN8681@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:38:54 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+d6ec23007e951dadf3de@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] hugetlb: use f_mode & FMODE_HUGETLBFS to identify
hugetlbfs files
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:53:24AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Currently, the only in-tree stacking fs are overlayfs and ecryptfs, but there
> are some out of tree implementations as well (shiftfs).
> So you may only take that option if you do not care about the combination
> of hugetlbfs with any of the above.
I could see shiftfs being interesting, maybe. I don't really see
the usecase for layering overlayfs or ecryptfs on top of a ram-based
filesystem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists