Re: [PATCH 0/9] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v17)

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 05:13 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:09:14PM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> 
> > If so, it has a big disadvantage for the layer-fs (or branch-fs) to have
> > to implement a new method for whiteout.
> > 
> > Overlayfs implements whiteout as symlink+xattr which consumes an
> > inode. And you don't like it, right?
> > What I showed is another generic approach without xattr where the new
> > method to whiteout is unnecessary.
> 
> I'm yet to see the reason that would make implementing that method a big
> disadvantage, TBH...

It's the fact that a directory entry based whiteout limits the amount of
change to the VFS, but has to be supported by underlying filesystems.
The generic_dirent_fallthrough() mechanism is a nice way of hiding it,
but there are still quite a few fs specific mods in the union mount tree
because of this.  Having to modify filesystems to me indicates the
mechanism is a bit fragile.  If we could do whiteouts purely in the VFS,
so it would work for any filesystem (without needing filesystem
modifications) that would seem to be a more robust approach.  I'm not
saying we can definitely do this in an elegant way ... I'm just saying
that if someone comes up with it, it's obviously preferable.

James



--
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/