On Sat, 2005-10-08 at 22:41 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > I don't understand this behavior. > > it > > 1) renames the file to the whiteout This was done so we would have better atomicity. > 2) truncates it. This is so we didn't fill up the disk unnecessarily. > > This truncation is obviously wrong (i.e. kills any open files). > > I would think the better thing to do is > > 1) create whiteout file > 2) unlink old file. Yes. Or we do magic with open files to check if we can't truncate.
The third option is actually that we remove delete=whiteout. I didn't know anyone that uses it, except you and it seems you are using delete=all now. Part of what we want to do is cull out any unnecessary code and clean up the remainder so that we have less than 11,000 lines to eventually submit to the kernel. This is entered as BUG 440. Charles _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
