On 07/08/2011 01:57 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
"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.
Hi Miklos,
There is a proposed (at the IETF) standard called "labelled NFS" that would
allow the protocol to handle xattrs.
It has not set the world on fire in terms of enthusiasm, but has been making
some progress. We have patches from Dave Quigley that did work, but need to
resolve the standards issues I suspect before it could make progress upstream...
Ric
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
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
