On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 at 16:43, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If we do this, then both overlay.whiteout and overlay.xattr_whiteouts > xattrs will be xattrs that the overlayfs driver never sets. > It's a precedent, but as long as it is properly documented and encoded > in fstests, I will be fine with it. Not sure about Miklos. Firstly I need to properly understand the proposal. At this point I'm not sure what overlay.whiteout is supposed to mean. Does it mean the same as a whiteout (chrdev(0,0))? Or does it mean that overlayfs should not treat it as a whiteout, but instead transform that into a chrdev(0,0) for the top overlay to interpret as a whiteout? Or something else? Thanks, Miklos
