On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 13:11 -0400, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 07:00:12PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, Josef Sipek wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 06:13:35PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > > > Introduce white-out support to ext2.
> > >
> > > I think storing whiteouts on the branches is wrong. It creates all sort of
> > > nasty cases when people actually try to use unioning. Imagine a (no-so
> > > unlikely) scenario where you have 2 unions, and they share a branch. If you
> > > create a whiteout in one union on that shared branch, the whiteout magically
> > > affects the other union as well! Whiteouts are a union-level construct, and
> > > therefore storing them at the branch level is wrong.
> >
> > So you think that just because you mounted the filesystem somewhere else it
> > should look different? This is what sharing is all about. If you share a
> > filesystem you also share the removal of objects.
>
> The removal happens at the union level, not the branch level. Say you have:
>
> /a/
> /b/foo
> /c/foo
>
> And you mount /u1 as a union of {a,b}, and /u2 as union of {a,c}.
Who does this? I'm assuming that a is the "top" layer. Aren't union
mounts typically about sharing lower layers and having a separate rw
layer for each union mount?
> $ find /u*
> /u1
> /u1/foo
> /u2
> /u2/foo
> $ rm /u1/foo # this creates whiteout for "foo" in /a
> $ find /u*
> /u1
> /u2
>
> Is that what you'd expect as a user? I don't think so.
That's exactly what I would expect.
If I were to:
$ echo "this is new" > /u1/foo
I would expect:
$ cat /u2/foo
this is new
So why should rm behave differently?
I haven't really been tuned into union mounts, so maybe I'm missing out
on something basic here.
Thanks,
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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
