On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Shaya Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
> > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is
> >> +currently unsupported.
> >
> > Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under /mnt/union, I
> > am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/ and /c/d/? That I may only
> > alter stuff under /mnt/union?
> >
> > If so, that sounds like a significant limitation.
>
> haven't we been through this?
If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist. It's
useful for the developers to keep track of obvious and frequently-asked
questions such as this and to address them completely in the changelog
and/or documentation. Otherwise things just come around again and again,
as we see here.
> 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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
