Re: Question about overlayfs ovl_link

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Robin Dong:
> There are two ways to fix this problem.
> First, traverse all alias of inode to find a non-zero-d_count dentry,
> this may be inefficient
> Second, create a new overlayfs inode and a new overlayfs dentry in
> ovl_link, that will make the result of two actions
> ("create link" then "mount", or "mount" then "create link") consistent.

How about third one (as for the original "two inodes" problem)?
- create a table to convert the uppderdir (real) inode number into the
  overlayfs (virtual) inode number.
- using the table, you can get the virtual inum from the real inum.
- as long as you have a single real inum (for hardlinks), you will get a
  single virtual inum.


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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux