From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209C11BB for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E02FEE for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:16:41 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o To: Miklos Szeredi Message-ID: <20150728121641.GI2851@thunk.org> References: <28240.1437753683@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1438003184.26913.23.camel@infradead.org> <20150727143342.GA2851@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Overlays and file(system) unioning issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:13:18AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Exactly. Switching overlayfs to deal with DT_WHT is trivial. > Turning off backward compatibility (checking 0,0 chardev as internal > representation) can be made a mount option of overlayfs. If the > DT_WHT representation is used, then it will work either way, but will > be suboptimal due to getattr on chardev. If the back compatibility > is turned off then it will be optimal, but wouldn't deal with the old > representation. > > The only remaining issue being backward incompatibility of the > filesystem image itself (old fsck, ...). Whether that's a problem or > not is up to the user/distro to decide. Yep, this seems like a no-brainer. Given that, is there anything that requires discussion at the Kernel Summit? - Ted