On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
>> support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
>> backward compatibility issues.
>
> Maybe make a
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
> support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
> backward compatibility issues.
Maybe make a tempfile and hardlink it into place when complete. That's what
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
backward compatibility issues.
Maybe make a tempfile and hardlink it into place when complete.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:26 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Miklos Szeredi mik...@szeredi.hu wrote:
Perfect solution would be an invisible temp directory. This needs filesystem
support, but perhaps not so difficult. Again could be done later without
backward compatibility
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:56:42AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>
> Here are some comments.
Thanks for the review.
>
> - I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
> have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
> In this version, you have now.
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 10:56:42AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
Here are some comments.
Thanks for the review.
- I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
In this version, you have workdir now.
Thanks for CC-ing me.
Here are some comments.
- I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
In this version, you have now. How about creating a "base"
whiteout under workdir at the mount-time? Maybe
Thanks for CC-ing me.
Here are some comments.
- I have no objection about the 0:0 char-dev whiteout, but you don't
have to have the inode for each whiteout. The hardlink is better.
In this version, you have workdir now. How about creating a base
whiteout under workdir at the mount-time?
I'd like to propose this for 3.16.
Changes in v22:
- Whiteout is now a special char device instead of a symlink, this breaks
compatibility with previous versions. See attached conversion script (takes
upperdir as argument).
- Uses cross-rename to make operations atomic: copy-up,
I'd like to propose this for 3.16.
Changes in v22:
- Whiteout is now a special char device instead of a symlink, this breaks
compatibility with previous versions. See attached conversion script (takes
upperdir as argument).
- Uses cross-rename to make operations atomic: copy-up,
10 matches
Mail list logo
