Overlay merging, with whiteouts

2008-03-11 Thread Michael Towers
Here is an example using the new 'shwh' (show-whiteouts) option, available in aufs-20080310. Junjiro: Maybe you'd like to check this through and include it in the cvs source? # EXAMPLE USAGE OF THE 'shwh' OPTION -- 2008.03.11 #

sysfs information (was: Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc)

2008-03-11 Thread Tomas M
I am always wondering about converting to /proc from /sys. Some people told me that newer system should select sysfs. But the changes of sysfs interface is painful. How do you think about procfs and sysfs? If I may join your debate, I have a suggestion for AUFS. I always wondered why

Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc

2008-03-11 Thread Jeff Mahoney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff Mahoney: Well it depends, if the sysfs files for brs are supposed to mimic the /proc/mounts interface, why not use /proc/mounts for it? There's the - -show_options callback now that should work perfectly for that,

[PATCH #2] Update for 2.6.25-rc

2008-03-11 Thread Jeff Mahoney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here's the updated patch. The old one compiled but had a few stupid merge errors left in it that caused it to bail out early after reading the inode. This one works as expected. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc

2008-03-11 Thread sfjro
Jeff Mahoney: Because /proc/mounts has a size limitation. Some aufs users had met this limitation and I developed /sys/fs/aufs/brs. What's the limitation? It uses seq_file, and passes the seq_file handle to -show_options. The maximum size of seq_file is PAGE_SIZE by default. Junjiro

Re: sysfs information (was: Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc)

2008-03-11 Thread sfjro
Tomas M: And after then, information for every fuse-mounted filesystem appears there. So it seems to me FUSE doesn't like sysfs as well, and thus it implements a workaround by using a different 'virtual' filesystem. So you could perhaps do the same for aufs? Thank you for your

Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc

2008-03-11 Thread sfjro
Jeff Mahoney: Yeah, that's what I was saying. A regular seq_file will expand, but since -show_options is called from within another -show operation, it can't. As far as I know a regular seq_file doesn't expand automatically. Will you point me why do you think so? Junjiro Okajima

Re: [PATCH] Update against 2.6.25-rc

2008-03-11 Thread Jeff Mahoney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff Mahoney: Yeah, that's what I was saying. A regular seq_file will expand, but since -show_options is called from within another -show operation, it can't. As far as I know a regular seq_file doesn't expand

Re: problem: Corrupted filesystem

2008-03-11 Thread sfjro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: The real cause was NOT in aufs (or unionfs), but in squashfs, more exactly due to the LZMA compression, more information in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=456489 It seems that debian people failed to apply sqlzma patch for squashfs, or to build their