[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Unionfs, looking up links and translators

From: Moritz Schulte
Subject: Re: Unionfs, looking up links and translators
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:47:15 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Oh, that.  Blech blech blech.

Blech is also corking.

> And, of course, this matters in just this case!  Because it's a
> union, and so the node is found in *two* directories and it's not at
> all clear which one is right.

I'm not sure wether I understand this paragraph correctly.  I was
thinking that the primary reason is quite independent from the
unionfs; the reason is simply that the underlying filesystem cannot
resolve a symlink completely (nor can a translater be started with the
correct ".." given).

Actually I was not thinking about making ".." go to the unionfs, but
this surely seems like a good idea.

>   If it's a translator (of any kind, including symlink) then it does
>   the translator linkage *itself*, just as diskfs/netfs does it.

I don't understand how that works in detail.  You mean, unionfs takes
the job away from the underlying filesystems and manages _their_
translators with nodes in _unionfs_?  Right now, unionfs only manages
virtual directories.

> Because of this difficulty, I think clearly (heh heh) the right
> thing is the first case.

I agree, that seems more robust.

moritz@duesseldorf.ccc.de - http://duesseldorf.ccc.de/~moritz/
GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06  B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]