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
