In message <20080116212139.GA17255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Halcrow writes: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:57:46AM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: [...] > Would the inclusion of Unionfs in mainline really slow down or damage > the union mount effort? If not, then I think the pragmatic approach > would be to make it available in mainline for all of the users who are > already successfully running it today. We can then focus future > efforts on the VFS-level modifications that address the remaining > issues, limiting Unionfs in the future to only those problems that are > best solved in a stacked filesystem layer. Mike, this is indeed the pragmatic approach I've advocated: as the VFS would come up with more unioning-related functionality, I could easily make use of it in unionfs, thus shrinking the code base in unionfs (while keeping the user API unchanged). In the end, what'll be left over is probably a smaller standalone file system that offers the kind of features that aren't likely to show up at the VFS level (e.g., a persistent cache of unified dir contents, persistent inode numbers, whiteouts that work with any "obscure" filesystem, and such). > Mike Cheers, Erez. - 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
