"Hans-Peter Jansen" <hpj@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > All kodos to you, Miklos. While I'm still missing a major feature from > overlayfs that is a NFS as upper layer, it provides a fairly good > start. A commitment from you, that such an extension is considered for > inclusion - given, that it appears one day - is appreciated. Also, > since xattr support is available for NFS, AFAIK development of generic xattr support on NFS stopped some time ago. > it would be nice to outline, what is missing for such an > implementation from overlayfs's POV. Allow using namspace polluting xattr replacements, such as aufs is doing. But why? Why is it better to do the overlaying on the client instead of the server? 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
