From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v17) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:13:23 +0000 Message-ID: <20130315051322.GX21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1363184193-1796-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <20130313160854.54ac0491044371b4db214698@linux-foundation.org> <20130315012541.GU21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <19058.1363320936@jrobl> <20130315044411.GW21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20079.1363324154@jrobl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, apw@canonical.com, nbd@openwrt.org, neilb@suse.de, jordipujolp@gmail.com, ezk@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, sedat.dilek@googlemail.com, mszeredi@suse.cz To: "J. R. Okajima" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20079.1363324154@jrobl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 02:09:14PM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote: > If so, it has a big disadvantage for the layer-fs (or branch-fs) to have > to implement a new method for whiteout. > > Overlayfs implements whiteout as symlink+xattr which consumes an > inode. And you don't like it, right? > What I showed is another generic approach without xattr where the new > method to whiteout is unnecessary. I'm yet to see the reason that would make implementing that method a big disadvantage, TBH...