Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753528AbcKEGo5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 02:44:57 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:36846 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752346AbcKEGoy (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 02:44:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20161104093050.GB1839@veci.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:44:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1175 Lines: 32 On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> >> Also introduce the concept of feature flags to allow backward incompatible >> changes to the overlay format. This should have been there from day one; the >> best we can do now is backport to stable kernels. Add the check for features >> without adding any actual features yet. > > No. I pulled the three other commits, but not that last one. > > That feature just seems to actively *encourage* backwards incompatible > features. It's a bad idea. Don't do it. If we've been able to do > without it so far, then why should we suddenly start doing things like > this? > > So I don't agree that it should have been there since day one, it just > shouldn't exist at all. > Linus, Can you please clarify your objection? I suppose you do not object to the concept of on-disk format version nor on-disk format compatible/incompatible features sets. Just to fact that overlayfs didn't have those form day one, so it should find a way to cope with that situation without patching stable kernels? Thanks, Amir.