On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:19:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
> If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist.
Good point. I'll add it for next time.
> > 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.
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.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
- Edsger Dijkstra
-
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]
