Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:52:08 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/35] Unionfs: Documentation |
| |
>+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs/00-INDEX >@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ >+00-INDEX >+ - this file. >+concepts.txt >+ - A brief introduction of concepts >+rename.txt >+ - Information regarding rename operations >+usage.txt >+ - Usage & known limitations
Try "and", & is so... 'lazy'.
>+Since 'foo' is stored on a read-only branch, it cannot be removed. A whiteout >+is used to remove the name 'foo' from the unified namespace. Again, since >+branch 1 is read-only, the whiteout cannot be created there. So, we try on a >+higher priority (lower numerically) branch. And there we create the whiteout.
higher priority (numerically lower) branch and create the whiteout there. (Starting a sentence with 'and' is like telling fairytales^W stories.)
>+solution is to take the instance from the highest priority (lowest numerical >+value) and "hide" the others.
(numerically lowest value)
>+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).
s/&/and/g;
>+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted is currently >+unsupported.
Either: Modifying a Unionfs branch directly while the union is mounted is currently unsupported. Or: 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 >+RESULT IN DATA LOSS.
Or stay silent (-> silent data corruption / loss)
>+Unionfs shouldn't use lookup_one_len on the underlying fs as it confuses
For written text, non-shortened forms (should not) are preferred. At least that's (<- that's texified speech not documentation) what we were told back in scool :p
>+NFS. Currently, unionfs_lookup passes lookup intents to the lower
should not use lookup_one_len() [...] Currently, unionfs_lookup()
most doc add () to clarify it is a function.
>+filesystem, this eliminates part of the problem. The remaining calls to >+lookup_one_len may need to be changed to pass an intent.
~
-`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |