In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Al Viro writes:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:08:30AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
[concerns about lower directories moving around...]
You are thinking about non-interesting case. _Files_ are not much
of a problem. Directory tree is. The real problems with all
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 01:45:15PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
You are thinking about non-interesting case. _Files_ are not much
of a problem. Directory tree is. The real problems with all unionfs and
stacking implementations I've seen so far, all way back to Heidemann et.al.
start when
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 12:08:30AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
* lock_parent(): who said that you won't get dentry moved
before managing to grab i_mutex on parent? While we are at it,
who said that you won't get dentry moved between fetching d_parent
and doing dget()? In that case
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Al Viro writes:
After grep for locking-related things:
* lock_parent(): who said that you won't get dentry moved
before managing to grab i_mutex on parent? While we are at it,
who said that you won't get dentry moved between fetching d_parent
and doing
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Halcrow writes:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:57:46AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
[...]
Would the inclusion of Unionfs in mainline really slow down or damage
the union mount effort? If not, then I think the pragmatic approach
would be to make it available in
After grep for locking-related things:
* lock_parent(): who said that you won't get dentry moved
before managing to grab i_mutex on parent? While we are at it,
who said that you won't get dentry moved between fetching d_parent
and doing dget()? In that case parent could've been _freed_
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Al Viro writes:
After grep for locking-related things:
[...]
Thanks. I'll start looking at these issues asap.
Erez.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Erez Zadok ezk at cs.sunysb.edu writes:
Huh? There's still aboslutely not fix to the underlying problems of
the whole idea. I think we made it pretty clear that unionfs is not
the way to go, and that we'll get the union mount patches clear once
the per-mountpoint r/o and unprivilegued
Dear Linus, 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-rc7-71-gfd0b45d).
This is in preparation for merge in 2.6.25. This code here is nearly
identical to what's in -mm (the mm code
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:59:19AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote:
Dear Linus, 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-rc7-71-gfd0b45d).
This is in preparation for merge in 2.6.25.
10 matches
Mail list logo
