On Jan 8 2007 14:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Shaya Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> the difference is bind mounts are a vfs construct, while unionfs is a
>> file system.
>
>Well yes. So the top-level question is "is this the correct way of doing
>unionisation?".
>I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until someone
>comes along and implements unionisation at the VFS level, at which time
>unionfs goes away.
Not either. I *think* Jan Blunck wrote a pdf-paper about 'union mounts', i.e.
the vfs construct you refer to. [
http://www.free-it.org/archiv/talks_2005/paper-11254/paper-11254.pdf looks like
it ]
However, it's not duplicating a namespace, hence, unionfs also has a
right to exist.
>a) is unionfs a sufficiently useful stopgap to justify a merge and
>
>b) would an interim merge of unionfs increase or decrease the motivation
> for someone to do a VFS implementation?
>
>I suspect the answer to b) is "increase": if unionfs proves to be useful
>then people will be motivated to produce more robust implementations of the
>same functionality. If it proves to not be very useful then nobody will
>bother doing anything, which in a way would be a useful service.
Fact is, when it's in, bugs could be shaken out. Though then I think what
better AUFS could do.
-`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]
