Re: [PATCH 01/22][RFC] Unionfs: Documentation

Jan Engelhardt
2006-09-01T07:47:24Z

Hi,

nice to see that unionfs finally tries to get in :)

>+Whiteouts:
>+==========
>+
>+A whiteout removes a file name from the name-space. Whiteouts are needed when
>+one attempts to remove a file on a read-only branch.

"namespace".

>+Suppose we have a two branch union, where branch 0 is read-write and branch 1

I'd go for "two-branch".

>+Copyup:
>+=======
>+
>+When a change is made to the contents of a file's data or meta-data, they
>+have to be stored somewhere. The best way is to create a copy of the
>+original file on a branch that is writable, and then redirect the write
>+though to this copy. The copy must be made on a higher priority branch so
>+that lookup & readdir return this newer "version" of the file rather than
>+the original (see duplicate elimination).

Apropos copyup, sparse copyup would probably a nice feature in future, but it
also has its effects.

>--- linux-2.6-git/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/usage.txt 1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
>+++ linux-2.6-git-unionfs/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/usage.txt 2006-08-31 19:25:19.000000000 -0400
>+
>+mount -t unionfs -o branch-option[,union-options[,...]] none unionfs

should read
mount -t unionfs -o branch-option[,union-options[,...]] none MOUNTPOINT

>+KNOWN ISSUES:
>+=============
>+
>+The NFS server returns -EACCES for read-only exports, instead of -EROFS. This

Will the NFS code ever be changed to return EROFS instead?

>+nfs-mouted branch.

mounted

>+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted is currently
>+unsupported. Any such change can cause Unionfs to oops, however it could even
>+BRESULT IN DATA LOSS.

RESULT

Jan Engelhardt
--