Re: [UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review

2007-12-14 Thread hooanon05
Hello Professor Zadok, Erez Zadok: I believe that small VFS changes to help stackable file systems are perfectly reasonable, and a good thing; and I'm working on such patches. Conversely, I am very mindful of the VFS's complexity, so I also believe that massive VFS changes are a bad thing; I

Re: [UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review

2007-12-13 Thread Erez Zadok
Dear Junjiro, thanks for your comments. I am familiar with the issues and techniques you mention below, and more. To properly address your comments, I had to explain some background before addressing each of your points. So my apologies in advance to everyone for the length of this reply.

[UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review

2007-12-09 Thread Erez Zadok
Al, Christoph, and Andrew, As per your request, I'm posting for review the unionfs code (and related code) that's in my korg tree against mainline (v2.6.24-rc4-190-g94545ba). This code is nearly identical to what's in -mm (the mm code has a couple of additional things that depend on mm-specific

Re: [UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review

2007-12-09 Thread hooanon05
Erez Zadok: (1) Cache coherency: by far, the biggest concern had been around cache ::: unionfs. The solution we have implemented is to compare the mtime/ctime of upper/lower objects during revalidation (esp. of dentries); and if the lower times are newer, we reconstruct the union