On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. >> > > > But how exactly do we "support" those fs right now? > Any attempt to use them would result in -EINVAL, because we will > bw requesting RENAME_EXCHANGE and RENAME_WHITEOUT Not unless whiteout/opaque objects are involved, and in fact those are not very common, so I can imagine a limited usage that doesn't involve those and will work fine. But I don't think this scenario is likely, so we should try deprecating it. 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
