On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote:
> > 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.
And unionfs is the wrong thing do use for this. Unioning is a complex
namespace operation and needs to be implemented in the VFS or at least
needs a lot of help from the VFS. Getting namespace cache coherency
and especially locking right is imposisble with out that.
-
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]
