Hi JR, Thank you for your response!
sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: > 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. > union/mnt_b/file_c union/file_c I agree, this would be bad, and can/should not be supported. It would be illogical to union a parent dir with a child dir. However I've given examples below which show why it doesn't happen with mounts. Test Case D # Works with official aufs > mkdir -p union a/mnt/a_files b/b_files > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs a/mnt > mkdir -p a/mnt/new_mount_files > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:a:b > find . ./b ./b/b_files ./a ./a/.wh..wh.orph ./a/.wh..wh.plnk ./a/.wh..wh.aufs ./a/mnt ./a/mnt/new_mount_files ./union ./union/mnt ./union/mnt/a_files ./union/b_files Notably absent: ./union/mnt/new_mount_files # aufs does not follow the mount Test Case E # This won't work without the modified aufs... > mkdir -p union a/mnt/original_files > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs a/mnt > mkdir -p a/mnt/new_mount_files > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:a:a/mnt > find . ./a ./a/.wh..wh.orph ./a/.wh..wh.plnk ./a/.wh..wh.aufs ./a/mnt ./a/mnt/new_mount_files ./union ./union/mnt ./union/mnt/original_files ./union/new_mount_files Notably absent: ./union/mnt/new_mount_files # aufs does not follow the mount Therefor, in the resulting union there is no illogical parent/child union. There may be subtle issues which are above me, however it looks to me that since aufs doesn't follow child mounts, that this is identical to Test Case B, which is already supported by aufs. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
