Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion
From: Michal Suchanek
Date: Thu Jun 16 2011 - 05:46:13 EST
On 16 June 2011 08:51, Erez Zadok <ezk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Val, Jan, Bharata, and others have spent untold amounts of time trying to develop a VFS-based approach. ÂIn lieu of stackable file system approaches, I was hoping to see those VFS-based approaches get the support needed to get merged, and yet they have not. ÂIt appears that development of the VFS-based approaches has stalled, sadly. ÂTo be fair, I have argued before that adding a lot of code to the VFS "just" to support unioning was a bad idea (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/13/242). ÂAnd I also felt that it was going to be hard to support approaches which required changes (however small) to many individual file systems (e.g., to add native whiteout support). But was I'd have been happy to see a VFS-based approach get merged, if the Powers That Be[â] sanctioned it.
Is there any reason why unionmount could not use the xattrs which are
natively supported by most filesystem already like overlayfs does?
That would cut on the sheer number of patches required to get it
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/