Re: Question about XFS_MAXINUMBER

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

 



On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Second, and this may be a revolutionary argument, I would like to
>> believe that we are all working together for a "greater good".
>
> I don't say no for the fun of saying no. I say no because I think
> something is a bad idea. Just because I say no doesn't mean I don't
> don't want to solve the problem. It just means that I think the
> solution being presented is a bad idea and we need to explore the
> problem space for a more robust solution.

Totally agreed, let's do that.  I've presented the issues I see with
creating a generic (i.e. non-multiplexing) inode number mapping for
overlayfs in answer to Ian's mail.

Do you see a way this problem can be solved without those issues?

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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux