Erez Zadok: > My point is that Overlayfs has ENOUGH useful features NOW to be merged. = > What stops it from going in?! More freeping creaturisms? Why do we need = ::: As I wrote before, I have no objection about merging overlayfs or UnionMount. My point is they have unioning feature but don't have some of essential filesystem features. I don't think it is a trade-off or something. As you and other people wrote, many years passed in unioning. The very basic features are already achieved in very early stage. The point is how normal filesystem features are designed and implemented. I am discussing about the design and feature of unioning, but don't stop merging overlayfs. > We cannot ask Overlayfs to support all of the features that other = > solutions have, b/c it may take a very long time to get those in when = Agreed, particularly union-specifc extra features. Actually I am not asking overlayfs to support all features aufs has. You may think what I am doing as a design review. > The vast majority of unioning users want 2 layers, one readonly, one = > read-write. Those who really want 3+ layers can use stack Overlayfs = > multiple times: yes it'd be less efficient, but so what? First we want = I don't think consuming stack space is efficiency issue. > We all have to accept a solution that's pretty good NOW but less than = > perfect. Otherwise we'll continue to have these debates and discussions = > for years on end. If you think merging overlayfs means the end of discussion, then I won't agree. It may be a beginning. 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
