On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 02:10:17PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josef Sipek writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 12:39:22PM -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
>
> > 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.
Hrm.
> > > 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.
Oh ok.
> 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.
Agreed.
Jeff.
--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it.
- Brian W. Kernighan
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
