Jörn Engel wrote: > On Sun, 3 September 2006 11:05:08 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > - Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > > > currently unsupported. Any such change may cause Unionfs to oops > > > and it can even result in data loss! > > > > I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Even root user should be unable to > > oops the kernel using 'normal' actions. > > Direct modification of branches is similar to direct modification of > block devices underneith a mounted filesystem. While I agree that > such a thing _should_ not oops the kernel, I'd bet that you can easily > run a stresstest on a filesystem while randomly flipping bits in the > block device and get just that. Not really a fair comparison. The block level is conceptionally totally different than the fs level, while a stackable fs is within the realms of the fs level. > There are bigger problems in unionfs to worry about. Agreed. Moving basic functionality abstractions into the VFS could easily alleviate theses kinds of problems. Thanks! -- Al - 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
