Erez Zadok: > OK. Then I believe you and I are in agreement: > > - Overlayfs has useful features to be merged now; no objections here. > - Other features can be added later on. Yes, that is what I wrote. > If, however, you feel that Overlayfs has some fundamental design flaws = > that prevent important future features from being added easily after a = > merge, then please outline such design flaws. I have made some suggestions and pointed out several issues actually. If my English is enough poor to make you misunderstood, then please point out with quoting. But Erez, don't you remember that you requested me to promise not to submit aufs for inclusion into mainline until unionfs gets accepted and I agreed? Do you really think I am bothering overlayfs? Here is a suggestion about your patch for ovl_show_options(). It is better to call d_path() or something instead of copying and holding the paths, since overlayfs already has mnt and dentry. And with d_path(), show_options will be able to follow even if the upper/lower mount is moved. 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
