In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josef Sipek writes:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 12:39:22PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:

> > Otherwise, this technique opens up a lot of races, which is why we want to
> > move from the individual ioctl method to a single (albeit long) remount
> > string.  One of the problems you have to solve is atomicity: users want to
> > make a series of branch reconfigurations in ONE SHOT, atomically (or as
> > atomically as possible).
> 
> How atomic do we want to get? Single branch operation (as we do now?) or
> multiple branch operations as you appear to propose?

Multi-branch of course: that's the whole point we're considering remount.
Under heavy loads, it's way too risky/racy to force users to apply branch
changes one at a time.

With the simple idea of cat'ing a whole new/revised config, users will have
the ability to apply one or more changes at once, as they desire.

> > I'm not sold on this idea yet, but I do think this may be better than asking
> > users to craft a rather long mount-time option string.  If this is the way
> > we go then I think a better way would be to exchange information ala /proc
> > files, such as /proc/partitions:
> 
> I don't think we want to use /proc. Sysfs was introduced to allow for
> cleanup of /proc. (Wouldn't it be nice if Linux had a /proc that's as clean
> as that of Solaris?)

I wasn't suggesting we use /proc, but that we model the format of the file
after some of the /proc files -- we'll have our own special named file
instead.

> I would also like something like libunionfs to appear after the switch to
> the new method. This would be a lot like libusb (which allows developers to
> easily access USB device info & data from userspace without having to
> manually parse /sys and(?) /proc).

Yes, sounds good.

Besides, at some point we're going to have to split the sources into a
"kmod" kernel module package and a "unionfs-utils" userland package.

Erez.
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs

Reply via email to