On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 15:33 -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:10:31PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 14:44 -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > > > Now what? How do you rename? Do you rename in the same branch (assuming it > > > is rw)? > > > > Er, no. According to Documentation/filesystems/union-mounts.txt, "only > > the topmost layer of the mount stack can be altered". > > This brings up an very interesting (but painful) question...which makes more > sense? Allowing the modifications in only the top-most branch, or any branch > (given the user allows it at mount-time)? Your examples point out the complexity of trying to allow modifications at lower levels. It seems to me to be simpler (even if recursive copies are needed) to leave it as proposed. > This is really question to the community at large, not just you, Dave :) I agree, but I have to add my $.02. > > > 1) "cp -r" the entire subtree being renamed to highest-priority branch, and > > > rename there (you might have to recreate a series of directories to have a > > > place to "cp" to...so you got "cp -r" _AND_ "mkdir -p"-like code in the VFS! > > > 1/2 a :) ) > > > > I think this is the only alternative, given the design. > > Right. Doing something like this at the filesystem level (as we do in > unionfs) seems less painful - filesystems are places full of all sorts of > nefarious activities to begin with. Having it in the VFS seems...even > uglier. I haven't looked at either implementation close enough to offer an opinion here that I would be able to defend. I'm sure others have their opinions. > Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. > 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
