| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: beginners project: RENAME_WHITEOUT |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:05:44 +1100 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20150109133019.GD28570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20141107190959.GB21021@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141108234232.GJ28565@dastard> <CAJfpegsvZtCxV-GSJ4ON7=JeNkZ7o2=+fmbOTrxDAfm==b1XBw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141110135249.GR28565@dastard> <20150109133019.GD28570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 08:30:19AM -0500, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > So, giving this conversation, should we implement WHITEOUTS in XFS > already, or is this isn't decided yet? Sure, we have to implement whiteouts to support overlayfs. Though internally we'll do it with DT_WHT in dirents, so we don't need inodes on disk for them. lookups will just have to allocate in memory chardev inodes so the rest of the world will function appropriately if they access whiteouts from the lower filesystems. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Apply for the loan you need$$, Paragon Loan Solutions |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [ANNOUNCE] xfs: for-next branch updated to 438c3c8, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: beginners project: RENAME_WHITEOUT, Carlos Maiolino |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 0/2] xfs: make xfs allocation workqueue per-mount, and high priority, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |