On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 23:05 -0400, Charles P. Wright wrote: > 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.
I used it because I didn't quite understand what it was doing at the time. Now I understand more about unionfs than I was expecting. :) _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
