Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification
	Filesystem
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Shaya Potter <spotter@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Josef Sipek <jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk
In-Reply-To: <1157376506.4398.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060901013512.GA5788@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
	 <20060903110507.GD4884@ucw.cz>
	 <1157376506.4398.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:08:58 -0400
Message-Id: <1157425739.5510.40.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1035
Lines: 24

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:28 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:05 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > - Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is
> > >   currently unsupported.  Any such change may cause Unionfs to oops and it
> > >   can even result in data loss!
> > 
> > I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Even root user should be unable to
> > oops the kernel using 'normal' actions.
> 
> As I said in the other case.  imagine ext2/3 on a a san file system
> where 2 systems try to make use of it.  Will they not have issues?

Yes, but you are deliberately ignoring that NAS systems like CIFS or NFS
don't, and neither do clustered filesystems. Users of those systems
don't expect them to have issues with that sort of scenario.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/