Hi, > > unionmount is expected to merge the filesystem on which it sits with > > the filesystem exposed by the translator it is asked to start in > > unionmount mode (further referred to as ``the Translator''). > > Nah, I think there are various clearer ways to name it: e.g. "target > translator", or perhaps "inferior" (like in a debugger), or "mountee"... > :-)
My vote is on ``mountee'', as you might of noticed in my other mail. > I don't think we should call it "shadow node": although there are some > similarities, it seems to me that it's not quite the same as the shadow > nodes in nsmux -- it would be confusing. > > For now, I suggest calling it "internal node" or "hidden node". We can > still change the name later when the exact role becomes clearer. How about ``wedge node''? I like the image it gives of prying apart the mountee from the mount point. :-) I'll stick to ``shadow node'' until a decision is made. > It is not fully clear right now -- I realized that there is another > decision to make: should the unionmount translator be directly visible > as the translator attached to the mount node; or should it serve as a > proxy, forwarding all requests on the filesystem port to the target > translator -- thus making itself more or less transparent, so it appears > as if the target was attached to the mount node directly? > > I tend towards the latter. I think the latter makes a lot more sense. I can't think of any reason to let the mountee be aware that it's detached from the underlying file system. If anything it would just confuse it. > One question is, how does the user request the unioning functionality? A > possible way would be adding options to the actual translators -- but > this would probably have to be handled explicitely by each translator, > making it rather ugly. > > Adding an option to settrans seems a more logical approach. However, we > will need a way to pass this information to the translator somehow -- it > might require changes to the translator startup procedure... I'd go with a settrans switch or a new but similar command, i.e. unionmount. Regards, Fredrik
