[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ShadowFS (status)
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: ShadowFS (status) |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:10:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.18i |
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 02:16:38PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Perhaps the shadowfs should get out of the game and return a real port
> > as soon as there is a single matching directory?
>
> A nice idea. Note that there are two cases, the lookup on the directory and
> the lookup below the directory. In the first case, you return a port to the
> directory, in the second you provide a retry port to glibc.
> If you decide to do either, you are cutting off the possibility that tan
> application becomes aware of files created in other shadowed filesystems
> afterwards.
That is, if it is a directory below such a directory that is looked up. If
it is a file, it doesn't matter.
Also an interesting case: One underlying fs provides a file x, and one a
directory x. What do you do?
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
- ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/02
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/02
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/02
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/02
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/02
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Niels Möller, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status),
Marcus Brinkmann <=
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Niels Möller, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Moritz Schulte, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Neal H Walfield, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Neal H Walfield, 2001/08/03
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/08/26
- Re: ShadowFS (status), Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/08/26