On Sunday 2008-06-01 08:02, David Newall wrote:
quoted text
>>   
>>> I prefer the technique of union of a tmpfs over some other fs
>>
>> You're right in principle, but unfortunately there is to date no working
>> implementation of union mounts. Giving users the option of using an
>> existing file system with a few tweaks can only be better than than
>> forcing them to use hacks like unionfs.
>
>I've not used unionfs (nor aufs) so I'm not aware of its foibles, but I
>can say that it's the right kind of solution.  Rather than spend effort
>implementing write support for read-only filesystems, why not put your
>time into fixing whatever you see wrong with one or both of those?

I have to join in. Unionfs and AUFS may be bigger in bytes than the
embedded developer wants to sacrifice, but that is what it takes for
a solid implementation that has to deal with things like NFS and
mmap. Even so, there is a fs called mini_fo you can try using if
you disagree with the size of unionfs/aufs, at the cost of not having
support for all corner cases.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/