Re: [PATCH 0/5] hybrid union filesystem prototype

[Valerie Aurora]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:35:02PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:47:39 +0200
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Changes to underlying filesystems
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > 
> > 
> > For now I refuse to even think about what happens in this case.
> > 
> > The easiest way out of this mess might simply be to enforce exclusive
> > modification to the underlying filesystems on a local level, same as
> > the union mount strategy.  For NFS and other remote filesystems we
> > either
> > 
> >  a) add some way to enforce it,
> >  b) live with the consequences if not enforced on the system level, or
> >  c) disallow them to be part of the union.
> > 
> 
> I actually think that your approach can work quite will with either the
> upper or lower changing independently.  Certainly it can produce some odd
> situations, but even NFS can do that (though maybe not quite so odd).

I'm very curious about your thoughts on how to handle the lower layer
changing.  Al Viro's comments:

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0802.0/0839.html

Do you see something we're missing?

-VAL
--
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/