Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:40:30 -0200 (EDT) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@mailhost.coppe.ufrj.br> To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Warning -- Lite/2 merge coming up Message-ID: <199612170140.XAA02665@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <199612161414.QAA20372@grackle.grondar.za> from Mark Murray at "Dec 16, 96 04:14:25 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"John S. Dyson" wrote: > > What about the other broken FS's, like union and null? > > > We have been holding off until the Lite/2 merge. Lite/2 might fix > some of the problems. Sometime ago I was reading the unionfs algorithm on the 4.4 BSD book. One problem that came to my mind was about the deleted files. It says that if one file on the lower layer is deleted, as it shall not be really deleted, an entry on the upper layer directory is created with the I-node 1. Ok, when I dismount the union, how will this I-node 1 behave ? Is it valid ? Should it be ignored or deleted ? What's its type ? When I remount the union, shall the lower "deleted" file exist or not ? If I compare unionfs to linkdir, "dismounting" should give a ENOENT error to the syscall attempting to access the I-node 1 file. Also, both keeping or not the "deleted" file approaches can be obtained. And, the final problem: When making a copy from lower to upper layer (to permit a write access to some file) should this be done by the kernel ? Is it a good approach ? This could mean a very large operation, and I don't like to keep the kernel busy for such a long time. Maybe a daemon implementation (just like portal) should do this job better. Jonny BTW: Is this discussion better suited on -hackers ? -- Joao Carlos Mendes Luis jonny@gta.ufrj.br +55 21 290-4698 ( Job ) jonny@cisi.coppe.ufrj.br Network Manager UFRJ/COPPE/CISI Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612170140.XAA02665>