Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756184AbcKERl6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:41:58 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:35177 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752918AbcKERlz (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:41:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20161104093050.GB1839@veci.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 10:41:53 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ogUnmGfdYKebneRn9__5ld_BEC0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3 To: Amir Goldstein 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: 1264 Lines: 36 On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Can you please clarify your objection? There are several: - timing. No way in hell will I take a new feature like this during an rc - lack of explanation. Why is this bad feature needed in the first place? Why would overlayfs versioning _ever_ be a good idea? - is the implementation even sane? Right now I don't think overlayfs even requires xattr support in the upper filesystem, so the whole concept seems frankly totally misdesigned. > I suppose you do not object to the concept of on-disk format version nor on-disk > format compatible/incompatible features sets. I object both to the concept and to the implementation and to the timing. The thing seems broken. Doing it during the rc cycle makes it doubly so. > 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? What "situation"? There's no f*cking explanation of why we'd even want this crap. Not in the commit message, not in the pull request, not *anywhere*. And then the commit marks that shit for stable? When it clearly doesn't fix anything, and it has never ever been needed before? NO. Linus