Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) writes: On 1/9/07, Erez Zadok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:03:35PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: However, I must caution that a file system like ecryptfs is very

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Trond Myklebust writes: I'm saying that at the very least it should not Oops in these situations. As to whether or not they are something you want to handle more gracefully, that is up to you, but Oopses are definitely a showstopper. Trond I totally agree:

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Kara writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Morton writes: On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is +currently unsupported.

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Hellwig writes: On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 07:03:35PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: However, I must caution that a file system like ecryptfs is very different from Unionfs, the latter being a fan-out file system---and both have very different goals

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Morton writes: > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:30:48 -0500 > Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well yes. So the top-level question is "is this the correct way of doing > unionisation?". > I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Morton writes: > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > > +currently unsupported. > > Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Morton writes: On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is +currently unsupported. Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under

Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Morton writes: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:30:48 -0500 Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well yes. So the top-level question is is this the correct way of doing unionisation?. I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until someone

<    4   5   6   7   8   9