On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:16:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:00 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:02 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:17 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:59 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:50:04PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > > > No reason to prevent upper layer being a remote filesystem. Do the > > > > > > > > revalidation in that case, just as we already do for lower layers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This lets virtiofs be used as upper layer, which appears to be a real use > > > > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Miklos, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have couple of very basic questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - So with this change, we will allow NFS to be upper layer also? > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't tested, but I think it will fail on the d_type test. > > > > > > > > > > But we do not fail mount on no d_type support... > > > > > Besides, I though you were going to add the RENAME_WHITEOUT > > > > > test to avert untested network fs as upper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pushed strict remote upper check to: > > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-strict-upper > > > > > > > > Vivek, > > > > Could you please make sure that the code in ovl-strict-upper branch > > works as expected for virtio as upper fs? > > Hi Amir, > > Right now it fails becuase virtiofs doesn't seem to support tmpfile yet. > > overlayfs: upper fs does not support tmpfile > overlayfs: upper fs missing required features. > > Will have to check what's required to support it. > > I also wanted to run either overlay xfstests or unionmount-testsuite. But > none of these seem to give me enough flexibility where I can specify > that overlayfs needs to be mounted on top of virtiofs. > > I feel that atleast for unionmount-testsuite, there should be an > option where we can simply give a target directory and tests run > on that directory and user mounts that directory as needed. > Need to see how patches look. Don't want too much configuration complexity, but I agree that some flexibly is needed. Maybe the provided target directory should be the upper/work basedir? > > I have rebased it on latest overlayfs-next merge into current master. > > > > I would very much prefer that the code merged to v5.7-rc1 will be more > > restrictive than the current overlayfs-next. > > In general I agree that if we want to not support some configuration > with remote upper, this is the time to introduce that restriction > otherwise we will later run into backward compatibility issue. > > Having said that, tmpfile support for upper sounds like a nice to > have feature. Not sure why to make it mandatory. > Agreed, I just went automatic on all the warnings. tmpfile should not be a requirement for upper. Could you please verify that if dropping the tmpfile strict check, virtio can be used as upper. Thanks, Amir.
