Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755320AbXHBK0l (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 06:26:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753125AbXHBK0d (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 06:26:33 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52749 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751070AbXHBK0c (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 06:26:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:26:31 +0200 From: Jan Blunck To: Josef Sipek Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bharata B Rao Subject: Re: [RFC 12/26] ext2 white-out support Message-ID: <20070802102631.GW5101@hasse.suse.de> References: <20070730161323.100048969@weierstrass.suse.de> <20070730161324.261652101@weierstrass.suse.de> <20070731163656.GC22350@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20070731170012.GN5101@hasse.suse.de> <20070731171159.GA27234@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070731171159.GA27234@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Organization: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1593 Lines: 47 On Tue, Jul 31, Josef Sipek wrote: > > So you think that just because you mounted the filesystem somewhere else it > > should look different? This is what sharing is all about. If you share a > > filesystem you also share the removal of objects. > > The removal happens at the union level, not the branch level. Say you have: > > /a/ > /b/foo > /c/foo > > And you mount /u1 as a union of {a,b}, and /u2 as union of {a,c}. > > $ find /u* > /u1 > /u1/foo > /u2 > /u2/foo > $ rm /u1/foo # this creates whiteout for "foo" in /a > $ find /u* > /u1 > /u2 > > Is that what you'd expect as a user? I don't think so. > Yes, although that might sound strange: you are sharing the topmost writable layer. This is what I expect. > > > store. We did an experiment with Unionfs, and moving the whiteout handling > > > to effectively a "library" that did all the dirty work cleaned up the code > > > considerably [2,3]. > > > > Haven't checked if you could use ODF for a generic store for filesystems that > > couldn't support whiteouts. This might be an interesting idea. > > Yes, since the ODF is completely separate, you can use _any_ filesystem and > regardless of whether or not they support whiteouts. Completely separate? It is totally tied to UnionFS and tries to work out purely the problems that this kind of VFS emulating filesystems have. - 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/