Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751002AbXAHVYV (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:24:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751011AbXAHVYV (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:24:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:44596 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbXAHVYU (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:24:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:19:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Shaya Potter Cc: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, torvalds@osdl.org, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, David Quigley , Erez Zadok Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation Message-Id: <20070108131957.cbaf6736.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1168229596580-git-send-email-jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu> <1168229596875-git-send-email-jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu> <20070108111852.ee156a90.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1515 Lines: 38 On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST) Shaya Potter wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 > > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" wrote: > > > >> +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > >> +currently unsupported. > > > > Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under /mnt/union, I > > am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/ and /c/d/? That I may only > > alter stuff under /mnt/union? > > > > If so, that sounds like a significant limitation. > > haven't we been through this? If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist. It's useful for the developers to keep track of obvious and frequently-asked questions such as this and to address them completely in the changelog and/or documentation. Otherwise things just come around again and again, as we see here. > It's the same thing as modifying a block > device while a file system is using it. Now, when unionfs gets confused, > it shouldn't oops, but would one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its > backing store while its using it? There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a restriction with union mounts. - 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/