On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is needed for choosing between concurrent copyup > using O_TMPFILE and legacy copyup using workdir+rename. I'm really wondering if we should constrain upper fs to those that: - can do RENAME_EXCHANGE and RENAME_WHITEOUT - can do ->tmpfile() which is currently a superset of the above - can do xattr, again a superset The question is whether anybody actually using it with an fs that doesn't have all of the above. Because if so, we need to keep supporting them. Perhaps we should add warnings about deprecation and if nobody complains we can remove support for non-conformant fs. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
