On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:05:04PM -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.
Makes sense to me. > > This truncation is obviously wrong (i.e. kills any open files). Hmm, but that's right, too. > > 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. True. > The third option is actually that we remove delete=whiteout. I didn't > know anyone that uses it, except you Uhm, well, actually, I was using this, too, and was not aware of any problems yet. I just did not want a file to get deleted on a non-toplevel branch when doing snapshots with multiple rw branches. WEll, maybe my interpretation of what the delete=all default does is wrong, but I thought that delete=whiteout would be the safest opion, which only operates on the toplevel rw branch. Right? Regards -Klaus Knopper _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
