Re: GSoC 2013: unionfs rewrite

[Justin Sherrill <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not necessarily qualified to comment on the actual work, but the
overriding theme when unionfs has been discussed is "no whiteouts".
Anything past that is up to how you want to plan it.

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:37 AM, C Davis <cd.rattan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm thinking about making a proposal for the unionfs project.
>
> On the subject of whiteouts, I've done some digging, and found this
> message from a few years ago:
>
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/kernel/2011-04/msg00005.html
>
> Matthew Dillon mentions that files with special suffixes could be used to
> represent deleted files. Various unionfs implementations on Linux
> seem to do something pretty similar with special files on the writable
> filesystem.
>
> Would there be any objections to handling deletions this way, at least
> to start with?
>
> Thanks,
>
> C Davis
> jabber/xmpp - cdrttn@jabber.org