>+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/00-INDEX >@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ >+00-INDEX >+ - this file. >+concepts.txt >+ - A brief introduction of concepts >+rename.txt >+ - Information regarding rename operations >+usage.txt >+ - Usage & known limitations Try "and", & is so... 'lazy'. >+Since 'foo' is stored on a read-only branch, it cannot be removed. A whiteout >+is used to remove the name 'foo' from the unified namespace. Again, since >+branch 1 is read-only, the whiteout cannot be created there. So, we try on a >+higher priority (lower numerically) branch. And there we create the whiteout. higher priority (numerically lower) branch and create the whiteout there. (Starting a sentence with 'and' is like telling fairytales^W stories.) >+solution is to take the instance from the highest priority (lowest numerical >+value) and "hide" the others. (numerically lowest value) >+When a change is made to the contents of a file's data or meta-data, they >+have to be stored somewhere. The best way is to create a copy of the >+original file on a branch that is writable, and then redirect the write >+though to this copy. The copy must be made on a higher priority branch so >+that lookup & readdir return this newer "version" of the file rather than >+the original (see duplicate elimination). s/&/and/g; >+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted is currently >+unsupported. Either: Modifying a Unionfs branch directly while the union is mounted is currently unsupported. Or: Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is currently unsupported. > Any such change can cause Unionfs to oops, however it could even >+RESULT IN DATA LOSS. Or stay silent (-> silent data corruption / loss) >+Unionfs shouldn't use lookup_one_len on the underlying fs as it confuses For written text, non-shortened forms (should not) are preferred. At least that's (<- that's texified speech not documentation) what we were told back in scool :p >+NFS. Currently, unionfs_lookup passes lookup intents to the lower should not use lookup_one_len() [...] Currently, unionfs_lookup() most doc add () to clarify it is a function. >+filesystem, this eliminates part of the problem. The remaining calls to >+lookup_one_len may need to be changed to pass an intent. ~ -`J' -- - 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
