Erez Zadok wrote:
quoted text
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710250705510.9811@blonde.wat.veritas.com>, Hugh Dickins writes:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
>> With unionfs also fixed, we don't know of an absolute need for this
>> patch (and so, on that basis, the !wbc->for_reclaim case could indeed
>> be removed very soon); but as I see it, the unionfs case has shown
>> that it's time to future-proof this code against whatever stacking
>> filesystems come along.  Hence I didn't mention the names of such
>> filesystems in the source comment.
> 
> I think "future proof" for other stackable f/s is a good idea, esp. since
> many of the stackable f/s we've developed and distributed over the past 10
> years are in some use in various places: gzipfs, avfs, tracefs, replayfs,
> ncryptfs, versionfs, wrapfs, i3fs, and more (see www.filesystems.org).
> 

A number of filesystems want partial or full stackability, so getting 
rid of lack-of-stackability whereever it may be is highly valuable.

	-hpa

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