From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/32] union-mount: Documentation Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:25:43 +0900 Message-ID: <8417.1243232743@jrobl> References: <1242662968-11684-1-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> <1242662968-11684-16-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, bharata@in.ibm.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, mszeredi@suse.cz, vaurora@redhat.com To: Jan Blunck Return-path: Received: from mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net ([219.110.2.182]:51808 "EHLO mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751756AbZEYG0X (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 02:26:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1242662968-11684-16-git-send-email-jblunck@suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Blunck: > +Rename across different levels of the union is implemented as a copy-up > +operation for regular files. Rename of directories simply returns EXDEV, the > +same as if we tried to rename across different mounts. Most applications have > +to handle this case anyway. Some applications do not expect EXDEV on > +rename operations within the same directory, but these applications will also > +be broken with bind mounts. Is renaming a regular file supported? Accrding to the change in "[PATCH 24/32] union-mount: in-kernel file copy between union mounted filesystems", every rename under union seems to be rejected. link(2) may be similar. When a "fileA" exists in the lower fs only, link("fileA", "new_file") will return EXDEV too. J. R. Okajima