From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:30:41 +0900 Message-ID: <32710.1348176641@jrobl> References: <1348167330-30288-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <9647.1348169684@jrobl> <877grozaih.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.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 To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: In-Reply-To: <877grozaih.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Miklos Szeredi: > Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts > or overlayfs. But that does come at a price: > > aufs: 98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > overlayfs: 22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Yes, I have to admit that aufs grew up very big. The fundamental (by design) difference between them is considering how important the filesystem semantics is. You may dislike a big module, but I am interested in how you (or someone else) will implement the missing overlayfs features to keep the semantics. One approach is implemented in aufs. I guess you will try another one. That is what I am interesed. J. R. Okajima