Miklos Szeredi: > Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts > or overlayfs. But that does come at a price: > > aufs: 98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > overlayfs: 22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Yes, I have to admit that aufs grew up very big. The fundamental (by design) difference between them is considering how important the filesystem semantics is. You may dislike a big module, but I am interested in how you (or someone else) will implement the missing overlayfs features to keep the semantics. One approach is implemented in aufs. I guess you will try another one. That is what I am interesed. J. R. Okajima -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
