On 03/20/2013 02:41:08 PM, George Spelvin wrote:
Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default
/.whiteout,
but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
whiteout entries?
Don't the ext2
On 03/20/2013 02:41:08 PM, George Spelvin wrote:
Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default
/.whiteout,
but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
whiteout entries?
Don't the ext2
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:41:08PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
> with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default /.whiteout,
> but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
> whiteout entries?
>
Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default /.whiteout,
but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
whiteout entries?
All you need to do is resolve the link (it's probably a good idea
to
Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default /.whiteout,
but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
whiteout entries?
All you need to do is resolve the link (it's probably a good idea
to
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:41:08PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
Sorry for being so very late to the party, but rather than messing
with xattrs, why not just have a specific file (say, default /.whiteout,
but selectable via a mount option) and links to it are counted as
whiteout entries?
All
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> Huh?
> * from st_mode point of view, it's not going to conflict with
> anything; FFS "entry type" matches bits 12..15 of mode_t, and the value
> picked by whoever had first implemented whiteouts had been chosen so
> that it would not
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Huh?
* from st_mode point of view, it's not going to conflict with
anything; FFS entry type matches bits 12..15 of mode_t, and the value
picked by whoever had first implemented whiteouts had been chosen so
that
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:37:50AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > As for whiteouts... I think we ought to pull these bits of unionmoun
> > queue into the common stem and add the missing filesystems to them;
> > ext* and ufs are trivial (keep in mind that FFS derivatives, including
> > ext*,
Miklos Szeredi:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Al Viro wrote:
:::
> > As for whiteouts... I think we ought to pull these bits of unionmoun
> > queue into the common stem and add the missing filesystems to them;
> > ext* and ufs are trivial (keep in mind that FFS derivatives,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> As for same upper on unrelated lower: just don't do it. As I said, we
>> could enforce this, but I don't think this is top priority.
>
> Tell that to container crowd - they seem
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
As for same upper on unrelated lower: just don't do it. As I said, we
could enforce this, but I don't think this is top priority.
Tell that to container
Miklos Szeredi:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
:::
As for whiteouts... I think we ought to pull these bits of unionmoun
queue into the common stem and add the missing filesystems to them;
ext* and ufs are trivial (keep in mind that FFS
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:37:50AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
As for whiteouts... I think we ought to pull these bits of unionmoun
queue into the common stem and add the missing filesystems to them;
ext* and ufs are trivial (keep in mind that FFS derivatives, including
ext*, have d_type
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> I don't see how that would deadlock. We follow VFS locking rules on
> upper and lower filesystem and never lock both at the same time. And
> we
> only lock overlay first and then upper *or* lower.
>
> As for same upper on
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23:50PM +, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
>> it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
>> thing.
>
> OK... Here's the first
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23:50PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
> it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
> thing.
OK... Here's the first pass at that:
* use of xattrs for whiteouts/opaque is a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
> it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
> thing.
>
> I *have* looked at unionmount lately, and the recent modifications dhowells
> is doing
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> Al and Linus,
>>
>> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>>
>> It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
>> projects. I regularly get
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Al and Linus,
>
> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>
> It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
> projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
>
> Git tree
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > Al and Linus,
>> >
>> > Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>>
>> Yes, I think we should just do it.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23:50PM +, Al Viro wrote:
I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
thing.
OK...
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
I don't see how that would deadlock. We follow VFS locking rules on
upper and lower filesystem and never lock both at the same time. And
we
only lock overlay first and then upper *or* lower.
As for same upper on unrelated
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Yes, I think
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
thing.
I *have* looked at unionmount lately, and the recent modifications
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:23:50PM +, Al Viro wrote:
I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with
it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
thing.
OK... Here's the first pass at that:
* use of xattrs for whiteouts/opaque is a
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > Al and Linus,
> >
> > Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>
> Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
> the other
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Al and Linus,
>
> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
the other alternatives are worse. Let's just plan on getting this
thing done with.
Al, I realize
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:22 PM, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>
> Miklos Szeredi:
>> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>
> Thank you for CCing me.
>
> First, I'd suggest you to follow some recent activities in mainline
> kernel such as
> - MODULE_ALIAS_FS
> - file_inode()
Okay, thanks
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> What happened to the subject lines (see v15)?
>
Oops, will fix. Thanks.
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Miklos Szeredi:
> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Thank you for CCing me.
First, I'd suggest you to follow some recent activities in mainline
kernel such as
- MODULE_ALIAS_FS
- file_inode()
- d_weak_revalidate() which may not be necessary for overlayfs as long
as it
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Al and Linus,
>
> Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
>
> It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
> projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
>
> Git tree
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
Git tree is here:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
Git tree is here:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
It's included in Ubuntu and openSUSE, used by OpenWrt and various other
projects. I regularly get emails asking when it will be included in mainline.
Miklos Szeredi:
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Thank you for CCing me.
First, I'd suggest you to follow some recent activities in mainline
kernel such as
- MODULE_ALIAS_FS
- file_inode()
- d_weak_revalidate() which may not be necessary for overlayfs as long
as it prohibit
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
What happened to the subject lines (see v15)?
Oops, will fix. Thanks.
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:22 PM, J. R. Okajima hooano...@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
Miklos Szeredi:
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Thank you for CCing me.
First, I'd suggest you to follow some recent activities in mainline
kernel such as
- MODULE_ALIAS_FS
- file_inode()
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
the other alternatives are worse. Let's just plan on getting this
thing done with.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Al and Linus,
Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
the other
42 matches
Mail list logo
