On Sunday 2008-06-01 08:02, David Newall wrote: >> >>> I prefer the technique of union of a tmpfs over some other fs >> >> You're right in principle, but unfortunately there is to date no working >> implementation of union mounts. Giving users the option of using an >> existing file system with a few tweaks can only be better than than >> forcing them to use hacks like unionfs. > >I've not used unionfs (nor aufs) so I'm not aware of its foibles, but I >can say that it's the right kind of solution. Rather than spend effort >implementing write support for read-only filesystems, why not put your >time into fixing whatever you see wrong with one or both of those? I have to join in. Unionfs and AUFS may be bigger in bytes than the embedded developer wants to sacrifice, but that is what it takes for a solid implementation that has to deal with things like NFS and mmap. Even so, there is a fs called mini_fo you can try using if you disagree with the size of unionfs/aufs, at the cost of not having support for all corner cases. -- 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
