On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
>> support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
>> backward compatibility issues.
>
> Maybe make a tempfil
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
> support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
> backward compatibility issues.
Maybe make a tempfile and hardlink it into place when complete. That's what
unionmou
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:56:42AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>
> Here are some comments.
Thanks for the review.
>
> - I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
> have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
> In this version, you have now. H
Thanks for CC-ing me.
Here are some comments.
- I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
In this version, you have now. How about creating a "base"
whiteout under workdir at the mount-time? Maybe i
I'd like to propose this for 3.16.
Changes in v22:
- Whiteout is now a special char device instead of a symlink, this breaks
compatibility with previous versions. See attached conversion script (takes
upperdir as argument).
- Uses cross-rename to make operations atomic: copy-up, unlink,
5 matches
Mail list logo
