On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:35:02PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:47:39 +0200 > Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Changes to underlying filesystems > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > For now I refuse to even think about what happens in this case. > > > > The easiest way out of this mess might simply be to enforce exclusive > > modification to the underlying filesystems on a local level, same as > > the union mount strategy. For NFS and other remote filesystems we > > either > > > > a) add some way to enforce it, > > b) live with the consequences if not enforced on the system level, or > > c) disallow them to be part of the union. > > > > I actually think that your approach can work quite will with either the > upper or lower changing independently. Certainly it can produce some odd > situations, but even NFS can do that (though maybe not quite so odd). I'm very curious about your thoughts on how to handle the lower layer changing. Al Viro's comments: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0802.0/0839.html Do you see something we're missing? -VAL -- 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
