>+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/00-INDEX
>@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
>+00-INDEX
>+ - this file.
>+concepts.txt
>+ - A brief introduction of concepts
>+rename.txt
>+ - Information regarding rename operations
>+usage.txt
>+ - Usage & known limitations
Try "and", & is so... 'lazy'.
>+Since 'foo' is stored on a read-only branch, it cannot be removed. A whiteout
>+is used to remove the name 'foo' from the unified namespace. Again, since
>+branch 1 is read-only, the whiteout cannot be created there. So, we try on a
>+higher priority (lower numerically) branch. And there we create the whiteout.
higher priority (numerically lower) branch and create the whiteout there.
(Starting a sentence with 'and' is like telling fairytales^W stories.)
>+solution is to take the instance from the highest priority (lowest numerical
>+value) and "hide" the others.
(numerically lowest value)
>+When a change is made to the contents of a file's data or meta-data, they
>+have to be stored somewhere. The best way is to create a copy of the
>+original file on a branch that is writable, and then redirect the write
>+though to this copy. The copy must be made on a higher priority branch so
>+that lookup & readdir return this newer "version" of the file rather than
>+the original (see duplicate elimination).
s/&/and/g;
>+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted is currently
>+unsupported.
Either:
Modifying a Unionfs branch directly while the union
is mounted is currently unsupported.
Or:
Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union
is mounted, is currently unsupported.
> Any such change can cause Unionfs to oops, however it could even
>+RESULT IN DATA LOSS.
Or stay silent (-> silent data corruption / loss)
>+Unionfs shouldn't use lookup_one_len on the underlying fs as it confuses
For written text, non-shortened forms (should not) are preferred. At least
that's (<- that's texified speech not documentation) what we were told back in
scool :p
>+NFS. Currently, unionfs_lookup passes lookup intents to the lower
should not use lookup_one_len() [...] Currently, unionfs_lookup()
most doc add () to clarify it is a function.
>+filesystem, this eliminates part of the problem. The remaining calls to
>+lookup_one_len may need to be changed to pass an intent.
~
-`J'
--
-
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]
