On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Al and Linus, > > > > Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10. > > Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and > the other alternatives are worse. Let's just plan on getting this > thing done with. > > Al, I realize you may not love this, but can you please give this a > look? People clearly want to use it. In particular the new interfaces, > like the inode ops open function with dentry passed in or whatever? > The changes outside of overlayfs looked fine to me. I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow. FWIW, I was not too happy with it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole thing. I *have* looked at unionmount lately, and the recent modifications dhowells is doing there are closing most of my problems with that; on the other hand, there's no fundamental reason why both can't get merged. Hell, might as well resurrect aufs, while we are at it... union-like things are actually on top of my "things to deal with this cycle" list, closely folowed by rework of ->readdir(). Miklos, two points: * I would very much prefer to deal with that (as well as unionmount and aufs) as git branches _expected_ to be reordered/rebased/folded/mutilated/etc. while we are sorting all that stuff out. For now, let's base them on -rc1. I expect that vfs.git will grow common stem, with bits and pieces of those guys getting gradually pulled into it, at which point(s) the rest will be rebased. * what Linus just said about bisectablity Oh, and the third one - I still owe you a bottle of your choice for sorting the atomic_open shite out. Is there any chance you'll be able to attend LSFS this year? -- 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
