On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST) Shaya Potter <spotter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 > > "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is > >> +currently unsupported. > > > > Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under /mnt/union, I > > am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/ and /c/d/? That I may only > > alter stuff under /mnt/union? > > > > If so, that sounds like a significant limitation. > > haven't we been through this? If it's not in the changelog or the documentation, it doesn't exist. It's useful for the developers to keep track of obvious and frequently-asked questions such as this and to address them completely in the changelog and/or documentation. Otherwise things just come around again and again, as we see here. > It's the same thing as modifying a block > device while a file system is using it. Now, when unionfs gets confused, > it shouldn't oops, but would one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its > backing store while its using it? There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a restriction with union mounts. - 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
