134229234030_564860007501Jan Blunck
I think it is wrong to unconditionally take the lock before calling atomic_dec_and_test() in _atomic_dec_and_lock(). This will deadlock in situation where it is known that the counter will now reach

 
159521694295_557260007535Jan Blunck
Creates the proper struct union_mount when mounting something into a union. If the topmost filesystem isnt capable of handling the white-out filetype it could only be mount read-only. Signed-off-by:

 
162629734137_570760007988Jan Blunck
From: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx Add support for fallthru entries to tmpfs. Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx --- fs/dcache.c | 4 ++- fs/libfs

 
199127124286_558760007441Jan Blunck
Honor the S_OPAQUE flag in the union path lookup. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx --- fs/namei.c | 17 ++++++++++++++-

 
180627414764_589760007123Jan Blunck
Add per mountpoint flag for Union Mount support. You need additional patches to util-linux for that to work - see: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/util-linux-ng/val/util-linux-ng.git Signed-off-

 
158320584046_561460007188Jan Blunck
This patch changes real_lookup() into returning a struct path. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx --- fs/namei.c | 82 ++

 
111423014357_540960007831Jan Blunck
Simply white-out a given directory entry. This functionality is usually used in the sense of unlink. Therefore the given dentry can still be in-use and contains an in-use inode. The filesystems inode

 
194524994804_508260007675Jan Blunck
Add some additional checks when mounting something into an union. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (He

 
106921964387_535560007958Jan Blunck
From: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx Define the fallthru dcache flag and file system op. Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx --- include/linux/dcache.h

 
179725894699_556060007415Jan Blunck
From: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx Define the fallthru dcache flag and file system op. Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaurora@xxxxxxxxxx --- include/linux/dcache.h

 
168420674474_573160007180Jan Blunck
This patch adds support for whiteouts to tmpfs. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaur

 
191927954482_527560007355Jan Blunck
This patch adds support for whiteouts to tmpfs. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Valerie Aurora (Henson) <vaur

 
110621484854_591060007060Jan Blunck
The userspace isnt ready for handling another filetype. Therefore this patch lets readdir() and others skip over the whiteout directory entries they might find. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <j.blunc

 
158523004257_597260007040Jan Blunck
The userspace isnt ready for handling another filetype. Therefore this patch lets readdir() and others skip over the whiteout directory entries they might find. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <j.blunc

 
193024524629_562960007113Jan Blunck
Break early when somebody tries to rehash an already hashed dentry. Otherwise this leads to interesting corruptions in the dcache hash table later on. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx

 
104426974181_551860007862Jan Blunck
Break early when somebody tries to rehash an already hashed dentry. Otherwise this leads to interesting corruptions in the dcache hash table later on. Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx

 
169823454657_518060007862Arnd Bergmann
Jan Blunck: +Rename across different levels of the union is implemented as a copy-up +operation for regular files. Rename of directories simply returns EXDEV, the +same as if we tried to renam

 
153527284010_538960007241Arnd Bergmann
Jan Blunck: +Rename across different levels of the union is implemented as a copy-up +operation for regular files. Rename of directories simply returns EXDEV, the +same as if we tried to renam

 
144922214541_570760007197Valerie Aurora
Arnd Bergmann: Right, but that is consistent with how the kernel would treat a rename from one mount point to another, and tools like mv can handle this in user space. Yes, that is the descri

 
174721224649_537560007662Valerie Aurora
Arnd Bergmann: Right, but that is consistent with how the kernel would treat a rename from one mount point to another, and tools like mv can handle this in user space. Yes, that is the descri

 
148927964358_567060007785Valerie Aurora
Valerie Aurora: Ah, we did implement that in an earlier version. I dont know if we dropped the patch by accident or on purpose, but the original version is below. We will either put this fea

 
153120114130_518860007752Valerie Aurora
Valerie Aurora: Ah, we did implement that in an earlier version. I dont know if we dropped the patch by accident or on purpose, but the original version is below. We will either put this fea

 
104927274479_505960007116Valerie Aurora
On May 18, 2009 16:40 -0400, Valerie Aurora wrote: @@ -705,8 +707,9 @@ struct ext2_dir_entry_2 { #define EXT2_FT_FIFO 5 #define EXT2_FT_SOCK 6 #define EXT2_FT_SYMLINK 7 +#define EXT2

 
130125654338_584260007531Valerie Aurora
On May 18, 2009 16:40 -0400, Valerie Aurora wrote: @@ -705,8 +707,9 @@ struct ext2_dir_entry_2 { #define EXT2_FT_FIFO 5 #define EXT2_FT_SOCK 6 #define EXT2_FT_SYMLINK 7 +#define EXT2

 
103820184654_568860007405Jan Blunck
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Traditionally the mount operation is opaque, which means that the content of the moun

 
134928824201_570860007514Jan Blunck
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Traditionally the mount operation is opaque, which means that the content of the moun

 
149220824526_562360007718Jan Blunck
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: The directory in the topmost filesystem is created during lookup. The contents of the directory isnt copied up presistently at that point in time. Therefo

 
137523204444_585460007560Jan Blunck
On Tue, 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: The directory in the topmost filesystem is created during lookup. The contents of the directory isnt copied up presistently at that point in time. Therefo

 
197126814124_530860007396Jan Blunck
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: So this means that the topmost branch always needs to be writable, right?  It isnt possible to make a union of two iso9660 filesystems, for

 
184025624414_549460007808Jan Blunck
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: So this means that the topmost branch always needs to be writable, right?  It isnt possible to make a union of two iso9660 filesystems, for

 
190025994690_510060007241Jan Blunck
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: On Tue, May 19, Arnd Bergmann wrote: This would work, but youd have to do this for each file system if you want to be able to use it as the top of

 
161527994324_514160007595Miklos Szeredi
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:48:00AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Traditionally t

 
185927974916_530360007295Miklos Szeredi
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:05:27AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: As Jan said, readdir() of read-only unioned file systems works with a tmpfs top la

 
186326214977_598860007499Jan Blunck
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: On Tue, May 19, Arnd Bergmann wrote: This would work, but youd have to do this for each file system if you want to be able to use it as the top of

 
138427704060_579860007310Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Is there any chance this will support NFS? I can union-mount tmpfs over nfs mounted fs, bu

 
160621634909_529560007215Miklos Szeredi
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:48:00AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Traditionally t

 
153628794014_586160007436Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:54:19PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS bas

 
145528794232_537060007884Miklos Szeredi
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:05:27AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: As Jan said, readdir() of read-only unioned file systems works with a tmpfs top la

 
166620444505_564260007434Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Is there any chance this will support NFS? I can union-mount tmpfs over nfs mounted fs, bu

 
114124164204_520260007468Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:44:06AM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: Youll get -EBUSY on the second

 
151228204631_542160007895Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:54:19PM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Mon, 18 May 2009, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS bas

 
163726514774_565160007794Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 18:08 +0200, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Awesome work, this may just get us out of a tight spot with our LiveCD. A

 
108629674673_531960007855Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:44:06AM +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote: On Mon, 08 Jun 2009, Valerie Aurora wrote: Youll get -EBUSY on the second

 
120320034899_570860007932Jens Axboe
Hi, This is the fourth version of this patchset. Chances since v3: - Dropped a prep patch, it has been included in mainline since. - Add a work-to-do list to the bdi. This is struct bdi_work. Each

 
114227874347_534660007561Jens Axboe
btrfs puts dirty inodes on there, so it must register a thread to handle them. Also fixes failure to check bdi_init() return value, and bad inherit of - capabilities flags from the default bdi. Sign

 
181425004381_544560007496Valerie Aurora
On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 18:08 +0200, Jan Blunck wrote: Here is another post of the VFS based union mount implementation. Awesome work, this may just get us out of a tight spot with our LiveCD. A

 
133925584147_511360007659Jens Axboe
Also a debugging aid. We want to catch dirty inodes being added to backing devices that dont do writeback. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx --- fs/fs-writeback.c |

 
190722954626_558060007964Jens Axboe
Hi, This is the fourth version of this patchset. Chances since v3: - Dropped a prep patch, it has been included in mainline since. - Add a work-to-do list to the bdi. This is struct bdi_work. Each

 
143428184967_533360007612Jens Axboe
Not meant for inclusion, just to monitor what is going on while testing this stuff. Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx --- mm/backing-dev.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
126426684398_561260007386Jens Axboe
btrfs puts dirty inodes on there, so it must register a thread to handle them. Also fixes failure to check bdi_init() return value, and bad inherit of - capabilities flags from the default bdi. Sign