In message <200806020951.26868.arnd@xxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann writes:On Monday 02 June 2008, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]Arnd, I favor a more generic approach, one that will work with the vastMy idea was to have it in cramfs, squashfs and iso9660 at most, I agree
majority of file systems that people use w/ unioning, preferably all of
them. ? Supporting copy-on-write in cramfs will only help a small subset of
users. ? Yes, it might be simple, but I fear it won't be useful enough to
convince existing users of unioning to switch over. ? And I don't think we
should add CoW support in every file system -- the complexity will be much
more than using unionfs or some other VFS-based solution.
Ah, ok. Doing those 3 will get better coverage for existing users. The
question may come to how much code complexity does it add to each, and
whether some common code can be excised into generic helpers?