Miklos Szeredi: > It's always easier to review something with less features, even if > that feature set is too little for real world use. Generally I agree with you. > The simplest version is with all branches read-only. That gets rid of > a _huge_ amount of complexity, yet it's still useful in some > situations. It also deals with a lot of the basic infrastucture > needed for stacking. If you really think it is a better way to get merged into mainline, then I'll try implement such version. > And that's when one starts thinking about whether unioning is really > the right solution. Instead this could be implemented with a special > filesystem format that only contains deltas to the data, metatata and > directory tree. It would be much more space efficient, could easily > handle renames, hard links etc, without all the hacks that > unionfs/aufs does. It sounds like an ODF (on disk format) version of unionfs (while it seems to be inactive). At implementing, I don't think it easier to maintain delta of filedata and metadata. Since aufs has a writable branch in it, it is better and easier to maintain data in a branch fs. If you think there should not be any writable branch in aufs, and all "write" goes to a new filesystem format, then it is equivalent to a writable branch, isn't it? If you say "just a part of write" goes to a new fs, then I don't think we can support several essential features, for instance mmap. J. R. Okajima -- 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
