On 10 June 2011 05:48, J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michal Suchanek: >> No implementation will satisfy all needs. There is always some >> compromise between availability (userspace/in-tree/easy to patch in) >> feature completeness (eg. AuFS is not so easy to forward-port to new >> kernels but has numerous features) performance, reliability. > > Not so easy? > While I stopped updating aufs2 just before 2.6.39 (because I simply have > no time), I think it is easy for aufs to support 2.6.39 or 3.0. > Would you tell me what is so difficult? > To be fair any out-of-tree in-kernel solution is going to be equally hard to forward-port. I am not a kernel VFS hacker so whenever there is a Linux VFS change other than trivial changes like swapping headers and renaming stuff I can't use an out-of-tree patch with the changed VFS. Any solution that leverages the in-kernel interfaces, either hacking them directly or calling functions not available from userspace is going to have this issue unless merged into the kernel. For me the current unionnount and overlayfs are sufficient in that I can run a live filesystem on top of them reliably. Others use overlayfs for small systems (eg. OpenWRT) where a solution as large as aufs is likely not going to fit unless most features can be compiled out. Anyway, as I understand it aufs is not going to be merged because the VFS maintainers don't want a filesyetem (like aufs) but do accept only mount (overlayfs or unionmount). So overlayfs is the only way forward now since unionmount development has stopped. Thanks Michal -- 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
