From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Newall Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:32:50 +0930 Message-ID: <48423B8A.20505@davidnewall.com> References: <200805311737.58991.arnd@arndb.de> <48419F45.20908@davidnewall.com> <200805312240.50720.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Received: from eth7959.sa.adsl.internode.on.net ([150.101.82.22]:41234 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751670AbYFAGDB (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jun 2008 02:03:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200805312240.50720.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, David Newall wrote: > >> I prefer the technique of union of a tmpfs over some other fs >> > > You're right in principle, but unfortunately there is to date no working > implementation of union mounts. Giving users the option of using an > existing file system with a few tweaks can only be better than than > forcing them to use hacks like unionfs. I've not used unionfs (nor aufs) so I'm not aware of its foibles, but I can say that it's the right kind of solution. Rather than spend effort implementing write support for read-only filesystems, why not put your time into fixing whatever you see wrong with one or both of those?