On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:15:37 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 2010-08-30 12:18, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > >> My comment about set-theory unions being commutative set me thinking. I > >> really don't think "union" is the right name for this thing. There is > >> nothing about it which really fits that proper definition of a union. > > > >We could call it overlayfs. People learn new names quickly :) > > There is a much larger issue that you should be very well aware about — > > "The name wanted to be a clever acronym for "Filesystem in > USErspace", but it turned out to be an unfortunate choice. The author > has since vowed never to name a project after a common term, not even > anything found more than a handful of times on Google." > > overlayfs already exists. Right next to fuse on sourceforge... lol No, I mean it. "Linux Over-Lays". :-) > > > Oh and I what I like to see is support for multiple readonly branches :) I think we very nearly have that, assuming I understand your requirement correctly. The lower filesystem can itself be an overlay, providing it is mounted read-only. So if /mnt/ro1 /mnt/ro2 /mnt/ro3 are all read-only branches then mount -o ro,lowerdir=/mnt/ro1,upperdir=/mnt/ro2 meaninglessstring /mnt/ov1 mount -o ro,lowerdir=/mnt/ov1,upperdir=/mnt/ro3 meaninglessstring /mnt/ov2 mount -o lowerdir=/mnt/ov2,upperdir=/mnt/rw ignoreme /mnt/overlay and /mnt/overlay will be the combination of 3 read-only filesystems and one writable one. (this doesn't work with the code as-is, but it is really just a few bug-fixes away). NeilBrown -- 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
