Re: Question about XFS_MAXINUMBER

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

 



On 20/03/18 16:57, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Amir, Miklos,
>>
>> On 20/03/18 14:29, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>> And I do appreciate the time you've put into understanding the overlayfs
>>> problem and explaining the problems with my current proposal.
>>>
>>
>> For a while now I've been wondering why overlayfs is keen to avoid using
>> a local, persistent, inode number mapping cache?
>>
> 
> A local persistent inode map is a more complex solution.
> If you remove re-factoring, my patch set adds less than 100 lines of code
> and it solves the problem for many real world setups.
> A more complex solution needs a use case in the real world to justify
> it over a less complex solution.

Indeed, it is significantly more complex.

Ian
--
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