On Sep 2 2007 22:20, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
quoted text
>+
>+While rebuilding Unionfs's objects, we also purge any page mappings and
>+truncate inode pages (see fs/Unionfs/dentry.c:purge_inode_data).  This is to

fs/unionfs/dentry.c

quoted text
>+Unionfs maintains the following important invariant regarding mtime's,
>+ctime's, and atime's: the upper inode object's times are the max() of all of

utimes, ctimes and atimes.

quoted text
>+2. Lockdep (a debugging feature) isn't aware of stacking, and so it
>+   incorrectly complains about locking problems.  The problem boils down to
>+   this: Lockdep considers all objects of a certain type to be in the same
>+   class, for example, all inodes.  Lockdep doesn't like to see a lock held
>+   on two inodes within the same task, and warns that it could lead to a
>+   deadlock.  However, stackable file systems do precisely that: they lock
>+   an upper object, and then a lower object, in a strict order to avoid
>+   locking problems; in addition, Unionfs, as a fan-out file system, may
>+   have to lock several lower inodes.  We are currently looking into Lockdep
>+   to see how to make it aware of stackable file systems.  In the mean time,

meantime

quoted text
>@@ -86,5 +86,12 @@ command:
> 
> # mount -t unionfs -o remount,incgen none MOUNTPOINT
> 
>+Note that the older way of incrementing the generation number using an
>+ioctl, is no longer supported in Unionfs 2.0.  Ioctls in general are not

2.1?



	Jan
-- 
-
unsubscribe notice
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/