On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:49:35AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
What I meant was that I use them as an example for a linear and fanout
stacking examples. While unioning itself is a complex operation, the general
idea of one set of vfs objects (dentry, inode, etc.) pointing to several
lower ones is very generic and applies to all fan-out stackable fs.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Linux, n.:
Generous programmers from around the world all join forces to help
you shoot yourself in the foot for free.
-
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]
