On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 17:20 +0200, Tomas M wrote: > > After spending a while thinking about this I do not think that remount > > is appropriate for adding/removing/reordering branches. While remount > > seems to be the ideal way to change branch configurations the amount > > of data that can be passed to it seems like it will not be enough. > > How would you add a branch to existing union by using this pseudo > filesystem? (in your example). Thank you. > > > Tomas M > _______________________________________________ > unionfs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
To do this you would create a new sub-directory under your union and then proceed to cat a new string into the branch ordering file for the union. Here is an example of the commands cd /unionfs/union1 mkdir branch3 cd branch3 echo mypath > path echo mymode > mode #echo imap info if necessary echo myimap > imap #back to our directory for our union cd .. #this line will check the current against what is being #written to this file to check if changes are necessary #and will perform the correct operations (shifting, adding, #deleting etc) echo branch1,branch3,branch2 > branches At this point you should have the new configuration in since we will be checking for writes to this special file as a trigger to internally perform what a remount or branchman ioctl would do. Since we are keeping the old and new strings we can use the strings to more easily perform these comparisons since we are dealing with branch identifiers rather than paths. We can still have the current unionctl functionality except its much cleaner and easier to implement because we are not dealing with ioctls since internally it all comes down to a "remount" which will be done through the branches file. In the case of the add before unionctl command we would just search for the identifier in the current string and make a new string with your branch identifier before it and pass that in additionally if the branch doesn't already exist in our psudofs we would need to add it. This way we can keep both interfaces for legacy use and for new users. -- David Quigley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
