Hello Lou,
Thanks for detailed reserach.
Lou Gosselin:
> I've been encountering the "dir is overlapped" error when using aufs.
> I'd like to point out there are some scenarios where the "overlap" is
> desirable, and not harmful.
:::
> Test Case E # inner mount
> > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:dir_a:dir_a/mnt_b
> Returns overlap error, but why?
> # Conceptually identical to test case B with regards to inodes, except
> that case works.
> # The mount location of mnt_b is completely arbitrary.
> # Why should the fact that it's mounted under dir_a prevent it from
> being unioned?
> # Case D shows that aufs won't follow inner mounts, illogical
> parent/child unions don't happen.
In this case, when dir_a/mnt_b/file_c exists, it will apeear in two
places union/mnt_b/file_c and union/file_c, won't it?
If you make some change about union/mnt_b/file_c, the change may not
appear about union/file_c. It depends upon the cache status. I am afraid
this situation make users confused much.
Do you mean dir_a/mnt_b is different mount from dir_a, and
union/mnt_b/file_c doesn't appear?
Then your approach may be worth to think again.
In the case B and D, these two branches are outside of aufs, aren't
they? Then all files will not appear multiple places and it is OK.
J. R. Okajima
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
