In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josef Sipek writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> ...
> > Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
> > demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
> > take a look at the copyup
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
...
> Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
> demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
> take a look at the copyup and whiteout patches in our previous
> releases at:
>
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
...
Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
take a look at the copyup and whiteout patches in our previous
releases at:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josef Sipek writes:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:55:45AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
...
Talking about copyup and whiteout at VFS layer, we have already
demonstrated what complexity it takes to have these within VFS. Please
take a look at the copyup and
On 6/20/07, Erez Zadok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Blunck writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> > I'd love to have functionality like this show up in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Blunck writes:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> > I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
>
> This has nothing to do with unionfs.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:43:56PM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> >> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
> >> done by using bind mounts
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> user does on FS A:
> mkdir /mnt/A/somedir
> touch /mnt/A/somedir/somefile
>
> and then 2 things happen in parallel
> 1) touch /mnt/B/somefile
> 2) mv /mnt/union/somedir /mnt/union/somefile
>
> since the underlying FS for 2) is FS
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
>> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
>> done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
>> After that the normal
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
> done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
> After that the normal locking rules apply (and hopefully work ;).
>From the kernel POV
On 6/20/07, Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
Well done. I like your approach much more than the simple chaining of
dentries. When I told you about the idea of maintaining a list of
objects I always though about one big structure for
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> +4. Union stack: building and traversal
> +-- +Union stack needs to be built
> from two places: during an explicit union +mount (or mount propagation)
> and during the lookup of a directory that
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
> I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
This has nothing to do with unionfs. This is about doing a VFS based
approach to union mounts.
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:21 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> From: Bharata B Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Union mount documentation.
Hi,
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
I'll not claim to have
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:21 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
From: Bharata B Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Union mount documentation.
Hi,
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
I'll not claim to have any
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
This has nothing to do with unionfs. This is about doing a VFS based
approach to union mounts.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
+4. Union stack: building and traversal
+-- +Union stack needs to be built
from two places: during an explicit union +mount (or mount propagation)
and during the lookup of a directory that +appears in
On 6/20/07, Jan Blunck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:21:57 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
snip
Well done. I like your approach much more than the simple chaining of
dentries. When I told you about the idea of maintaining a list of
dentry,vfsmount objects I always though about one
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
After that the normal locking rules apply (and hopefully work ;).
From the kernel POV
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
After that the normal locking
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
user does on FS A:
mkdir /mnt/A/somedir
touch /mnt/A/somedir/somefile
and then 2 things happen in parallel
1) touch /mnt/B/somefile
2) mv /mnt/union/somedir /mnt/union/somefile
since the underlying FS for 2) is FS A... how
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:43:56PM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +, Jan Blunck wrote:
Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
done by using bind mounts and bind a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Blunck writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
This has nothing to do with unionfs. This is
On 6/20/07, Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Blunck writes:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:51 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
first of all I'm happy to see that people are still working on unionfs;
I'd love to have functionality like this show up in Linux.
From: Bharata B Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Union mount documentation.
Adds union mount documentation.
Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/union-mounts.txt | 232 +
1 files changed, 232 insertions(+)
--- /dev/null
+++
From: Bharata B Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Union mount documentation.
Adds union mount documentation.
Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/union-mounts.txt | 232 +
1 files changed, 232 insertions(+)
--- /dev/null
+++
26 matches
Mail list logo
