In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josef Sipek writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> ...
> > Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
> > demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
> > take a look at the copyup an
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
...
> Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
> demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
> take a look at the copyup and whiteout patches in our previous
> releases at:
>
> http://
On 6/20/07, Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Blunck writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> > I'd love to have functionality like this show up in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Blunck writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> > I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
>
> This has nothing to do with unionfs. Th
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:43:56PM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> >> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
> >> done by using bind mounts an
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> user does on FS A:
> mkdir /mnt/A/somedir
> touch /mnt/A/somedir/somefile
>
> and then 2 things happen in parallel
> 1) touch /mnt/B/somefile
> 2) mv /mnt/union/somedir /mnt/union/somefile
>
> since the underlying FS for 2) is FS A.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
>> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
>> done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
>> After that the normal lo
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
> done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
> After that the normal locking rules apply (and hopefully work ;).
>From the kernel POV mou
On 6/20/07, Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
Well done. I like your approach much more than the simple chaining of
dentries. When I told you about the idea of maintaining a list of
objects I always though about one big structure for
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> +4. Union stack: building and traversal
> +-- +Union stack needs to be built
> from two places: during an explicit union +mount (or mount propagation)
> and during the lookup of a directory that +appears
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
This has nothing to do with unionfs. This is about doing a VFS based
approach to union mounts. Unifica
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:21 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> From: Bharata B Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Union mount documentation.
Hi,
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
I'll not claim to have any
12 matches
Mail list logo
