Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

[Jan Kara]

> In message <20070110161215.GB12654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara writes:
> > > In message <20070109122644.GB1260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara writes:
> [...]
> > > Jan, all of it is duable: we can downgrade the f/s to readonly, grab various
> > > locks, search through various lists looking for open fd's and such, then
> > > decide if to allow the mount or not.  And hopefully all of that can be done
> > > in a non-racy manner.  But it feels just rather hacky and ugly to me.  If
> > > this community will endorse such a solution, we'll be happy to develop it.
> > > But right now my impression is that if we posted such patches today, some
> > > people will have to wipe the vomit off of their monitors... :-)
> >   I see :). To me it just sounds as if you want to do remount-read-only
> > for source filesystems, which is operation we support perfectly fine,
> > and after that create union mount. But I agree you cannot do quite that
> > since you need to have write access later from your union mount. So
> > maybe it's not so easy as I thought.
> >   On the other hand, there was some effort to support read-only bind-mounts of
> > read-write filesystems (there were even some patches floating around but
> > I don't think they got merged) and that should be even closer to what
> > you'd need...
> 
> I didn't know about those patches, but yes, they do sound useful.  I'm
> curious who needed such functionality before and why.  If someone can point
> me to those patches, we can look into using them for Unionfs.  Thanks.
  Dave Hansen writes them. One of recent submissions starts for example at
http://openvz.org/pipermail/devel/2006-December/002543.html.

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SuSE CR Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/