On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Josef Sipek wrote: > > There's no such problem with bind mounts. It's surprising to see such a > > restriction with union mounts. > > Bind mounts are a purely VFS level construct. Unionfs is, as the name > implies, a filesystem. Last year at OLS, it seemed that a lot of people > agreed that unioning is neither purely a fs construct, nor purely a vfs > construct. > > I'm using Unionfs (and ecryptfs) as guinea pigs to make linux fs stacking > friendly - a topic to be discussed at LSF in about a month. And unionfs is the wrong thing do use for this. Unioning is a complex namespace operation and needs to be implemented in the VFS or at least needs a lot of help from the VFS. Getting namespace cache coherency and especially locking right is imposisble with out that. - 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
