On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Erez Zadok <ezk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Nevertheless, I can understand if the embedded community wants lightweight > unioning. Union Mounts initially may not support everything that unionfs > does, but it should be smaller, and it should be enough I believe for the > basic unioning uses --- perhaps even for the embedded community. If so, > then I suggest people offer to help Bharata and Jan Blunk's efforts, rather > than [sic] cramming unioning into a single file system. > Though Union Mount effort has become slow and silent lately, some of us are still working on it. While I worked on readdir support lately, Jan Blunck and David Woodhouse are working on having a generic whiteout support for linux. Talking about help, Union Mount effort could take a generous help in getting directory listing implementation right. We first tried to handle duplicate elimination (during readdir) inside the kernel entirely. The outcome was neither clean nor efficient. (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/5/147). Then there was a suggestion to push the duplicate elimination to userspace. When that was tried out (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/29/248), we were told that NFS support is going to be an issue. (BTW NFS support is going to be an issue irrespective of where directory listing is implemented: kernel or userspace). Some insights into feasibility of supporting NFS with Union Mount from people who understand NFS better would be very helpful. Regards, Bharata. -- http://bharata.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm -- 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
