On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 07:15:10PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Sat, 26 August 2006 22:05:21 +0300, Al Boldi wrote: ... > > > Or you can give Unionfs a try: http://www.unionfs.org > > > > UnionFS is great, but it incurs additional overhead, as it lives below the > > real VFS. What could be really great, is to move some basic functionality > > abstractions from UnionFS into VFS proper. > > If you want to make this vision happen, one of the missing pieces is a > method for copyup, an in-kernel copying routine. Unionfs needs is > just the same as Jan's patches do and in the past Linus didn't like my > approach of using sendfile for it. You could take a stab at the > splice code and see how that can be used for copyup. The thing with union mounts/unionfs is that some of the functionality makes sense to have in a file system while other parts make sense to have in the VFS - the way I see it, namespace related bits should be in VFS while persistent state should be done on the file system level. Josef "Jeff" Sipek. -- If I have trouble installing Linux, something is wrong. Very wrong. - Linus Torvalds - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
