In message <20080116212139.GA17255@localhost.austin.ibm.com>, Michael Halcrow writes:
quoted text
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:57:46AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
quoted text
> Would the inclusion of Unionfs in mainline really slow down or damage
> the union mount effort? If not, then I think the pragmatic approach
> would be to make it available in mainline for all of the users who are
> already successfully running it today. We can then focus future
> efforts on the VFS-level modifications that address the remaining
> issues, limiting Unionfs in the future to only those problems that are
> best solved in a stacked filesystem layer.

Mike, this is indeed the pragmatic approach I've advocated: as the VFS would
come up with more unioning-related functionality, I could easily make use of
it in unionfs, thus shrinking the code base in unionfs (while keeping the
user API unchanged).  In the end, what'll be left over is probably a smaller
standalone file system that offers the kind of features that aren't likely
to show up at the VFS level (e.g., a persistent cache of unified dir
contents, persistent inode numbers, whiteouts that work with any "obscure"
filesystem, and such).

quoted text
> Mike

Cheers,
Erez.
-
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