From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7 v3] overlay: hybrid overlay filesystem prototype Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:15:29 +0900 Message-ID: <307.1285589729@jrobl> References: <20100920180404.939991832@szeredi.hu> <20100924175653.GB25129@shell> <201009271349.49077.agruen@suse.de> Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Valerie Aurora , linuxram@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: Received: from mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net ([219.110.2.182]:33900 "EHLO mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754170Ab0I0MQ2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:16:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201009271349.49077.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andreas Gruenbacher: > I can think of arguments for either behavior, perhaps with a slight preference > for your suggestion (default = opaque). > > In any case, admins will need a way to flip opaque flags and remove undesired > whiteouts. Agreed. Aufs is providing two options for this issue, "diropq=always" and "diropq=whiteouted". Several years ago, the default was "always". But soon it changed to "whiteouted" and I have never received objection from users. As for as I know, some users are happy since the number of whiteouts was reduced. Because they merge layers manually for system maintenance. Unnecessary whiteouts are not good to them. J. R. Okajima