Alex Hornung <[email protected]> writes: > On 28/03/11 16:48, Naohiro Aota wrote: >> about implementing a new unionfs: >> >>> The current unionfs is completely broken as it relies on the whiteout >>> VFS technique which is not supported by HAMMER. >> >> - Then main work would be to implement whiteout feature on HAMMER? >> - or rewrite unionfs code not to depend on whiteout technique? > > I've now changed the text on the projects page to reflect that we don't > want a new unionfs using whiteout. So the aim of this project is to > develop a unionfs from scratch avoiding techniques which require messing > with other filesystems.
I've read current unionfs implement roughly, but I can't imagine how I implement unionfs without whiteout. Are there any way to do so? Or I should write code to support whiteout not on VFS side but on unionfs side? > About the VFS you can refer to the book "Design & Implementation of > FreeBSD". Things have changed, but it gives a good general perspective > of how things work. The namecache, most interesting part for unionfs, > has no real documentation, only inline with the code. I grep'ed unionfs source directory with "namecache", but got no result.. Could you tell me where it is used? Regards,
