On 20/03/18 16:57, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Amir, Miklos, >> >> On 20/03/18 14:29, Amir Goldstein wrote: >>> >>> And I do appreciate the time you've put into understanding the overlayfs >>> problem and explaining the problems with my current proposal. >>> >> >> For a while now I've been wondering why overlayfs is keen to avoid using >> a local, persistent, inode number mapping cache? >> > > A local persistent inode map is a more complex solution. > If you remove re-factoring, my patch set adds less than 100 lines of code > and it solves the problem for many real world setups. > A more complex solution needs a use case in the real world to justify > it over a less complex solution. Indeed, it is significantly more complex. Ian
