On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 16:28 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > There ought to be a reason that other implementations offer > > doing multiple branches with a single vfsmount. > > Overdesign. > > Thanks, > Miklos > -- > 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 Actually it's not overdesign. We support an arbitrary number of branches with only the requirement that the top most branch be writable unless you want the entire mount to be read-only. That is a feature that people seem to have wanted for the many years that we have been working on UnionFS. You have the limitation that you only support two branches which is why you have to use the hack of making unions of unions of unions where we would just add the 3 branches and mark them ro instead. This kind of functionality makes administration more straight forward when you are performing a task such as creating an RPM repository from a series of loop back mounted images. I also used UnionFS to create a mechanism for providing unified home directories on polyinstantiated MLS systems (which is essentially a unified namespace with extra namespace manipulation rules). I'd actually look at what UnionFS and AUFS have done before you write their decisions off with snippy one word answers. Dave -- 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
