On Jan 8 2007 14:02, Andrew Morton wrote: >Shaya Potter <spotter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> the difference is bind mounts are a vfs construct, while unionfs is a >> file system. > >Well yes. So the top-level question is "is this the correct way of doing >unionisation?". >I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until someone >comes along and implements unionisation at the VFS level, at which time >unionfs goes away. Not either. I *think* Jan Blunck wrote a pdf-paper about 'union mounts', i.e. the vfs construct you refer to. [ http://www.free-it.org/archiv/talks_2005/paper-11254/paper-11254.pdf looks like it ] However, it's not duplicating a namespace, hence, unionfs also has a right to exist. >a) is unionfs a sufficiently useful stopgap to justify a merge and > >b) would an interim merge of unionfs increase or decrease the motivation > for someone to do a VFS implementation? > >I suspect the answer to b) is "increase": if unionfs proves to be useful >then people will be motivated to produce more robust implementations of the >same functionality. If it proves to not be very useful then nobody will >bother doing anything, which in a way would be a useful service. Fact is, when it's in, bugs could be shaken out. Though then I think what better AUFS could do. -`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