From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754242Ab2ITUqh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:46:37 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:54448 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752857Ab2ITUqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:46:35 -0400 From: Miklos Szeredi To: "J. R. Okajima" Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, apw@canonical.com, nbd@openwrt.org, neilb@suse.de, jordipujolp@gmail.com, ezk@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu, dhowells@redhat.com, sedat.dilek@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15) In-Reply-To: <9647.1348169684@jrobl> (J. R. Okajima's message of "Fri, 21 Sep 2012 04:34:44 +0900") References: <1348167330-30288-1-git-send-email-miklos@szeredi.hu> <9647.1348169684@jrobl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:48:06 +0200 Message-ID: <877grozaih.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "J. R. Okajima" writes: > Miklos, how do you think about this? > > Do you think UnionMount is totally gone? Unionmount provides almost the same functionality as overlayfs. The big difference between the two is that unionmounts resides 100% in the VFS while 95% of overlayfs is plain filesystem code. I think that's the biggest advantage: filesystem code is easier to maintain, has less impact on core complexity, etc. Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts or overlayfs. But that does come at a price: aufs: 98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) overlayfs: 22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) Thanks, Miklos