Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758762Ab1FPXlN (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:41:13 -0400 Received: from mail07-md.ns.itscom.net ([175.177.155.117]:57172 "EHLO mail07-md.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756792Ab1FPXlM (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:41:12 -0400 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion To: Erez Zadok Cc: Andrew Morton , Miklos Szeredi , "viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk Viro" , Linus Torvalds , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "apw@canonical.com" , "nbd@openwrt.org" , "neilb@suse.de" , "hramrach@centrum.cz" , "jordipujolp@gmail.com" , "mszeredi@suse.cz" In-Reply-To: References: <1306932380-10280-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <4540f7aa16724111bd792a1d577261c2@HUBCAS1.cs.stonybrook.edu> <954F11FF-339B-48E2-8358-A158DE1E53BC@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:41:03 +0900 Message-ID: <15841.1308267663@jrobl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1817 Lines: 46 Erez Zadok: > My point is that Overlayfs has ENOUGH useful features NOW to be merged. = > What stops it from going in?! More freeping creaturisms? Why do we need = ::: As I wrote before, I have no objection about merging overlayfs or UnionMount. My point is they have unioning feature but don't have some of essential filesystem features. I don't think it is a trade-off or something. As you and other people wrote, many years passed in unioning. The very basic features are already achieved in very early stage. The point is how normal filesystem features are designed and implemented. I am discussing about the design and feature of unioning, but don't stop merging overlayfs. > We cannot ask Overlayfs to support all of the features that other = > solutions have, b/c it may take a very long time to get those in when = Agreed, particularly union-specifc extra features. Actually I am not asking overlayfs to support all features aufs has. You may think what I am doing as a design review. > The vast majority of unioning users want 2 layers, one readonly, one = > read-write. Those who really want 3+ layers can use stack Overlayfs = > multiple times: yes it'd be less efficient, but so what? First we want = I don't think consuming stack space is efficiency issue. > We all have to accept a solution that's pretty good NOW but less than = > perfect. Otherwise we'll continue to have these debates and discussions = > for years on end. If you think merging overlayfs means the end of discussion, then I won't agree. It may be a beginning. J. R. Okajima -- 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/