From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181101004813.31349-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20181101004813.31349-2-amir73il@gmail.com> <20181101130322.GA15140@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 23:22:36 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ovl: return error on mount if metacopy cannot be enabled Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Vivek Goyal , overlayfs List-ID: On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:41 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:48:09AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > >>> > >>> case OPT_METACOPY_ON: > >>> config->metacopy = true; > >>> + config->strict = true; > >> > >> I think either ->strict should go in a separate patch or we should have > >> a good description in commit message, explaining why ->strict is there > >> and how it will impact behavior going forward. > > > > I'm redoing Amir's patches a bit, and at the moment I'm more inclined > > to leave this after the merge window, since there are so many subtle > > details to deal with. > > > > Back shortly with an updated set. > > ...this is more complicated than I thought. > My reaction as well when I started to dive in... Are you still going to redo the "strict" series? With metacopy out of the picture, I can just reorder the patches and drop the metacopy=on mentions. Let me know if you want me to do that. > Anyway, pushed a metacopy fix to overlayfs-next, that I'm pretty happy with. > Me too. We should do the same for nfs_export=on implies index=on. There are probably more users that just want nfs_export=on than users that know what index=on even means. Let me know if you want me to do that. Thanks, Amir.