Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:27:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:27:43 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:10488 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:27:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:27:35 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Denis Vlasenko cc: Brian Gerst , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct super_block cleanup - msdos/vfat In-Reply-To: <200203151040.g2FAeqq20797@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > Does this mean umsdos can be layered atop of wider range of filesystems than > just msdos? That would be cool. Yes, but what's cool about it? If not for the fact that there are weird setups that actually use umsdos (i.e. compatibility reasons), the best way to deal with it would be rm -rf... If underlying filesystem has normal semantics - you don't need anything, if it doesn't... I'd suggest to use combination of tar(1) and ramfs. At least that way you get full Unix semantics - no mess with rename breaking links, etc. > Also, would it be possible to mount both underlying msdos fs and umsdos fs > layered on top of it at the same time (on different mountpoints)? No. That stuff is ugly as it is and trying to make it deal with unexpected changes of underlying fs... - 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/