• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: union mounts not supported?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: union mounts not supported?


  • Subject: Re: union mounts not supported?
  • From: Shantonu Sen <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:42:13 -0700

I'm not sure that addresses the original poster's question.

There are two "union-y" thingies. The MNT_UNION option to the mount(2) system call (or "-o union" to mount(8)) allows a new filesystem to be grafted into the namespace and at the top level of that new mountpoint, files/directories in the underlying mountpoint can show through if not overriden. But once you "cd" to a directory in the lower level, you are fully in the lower filesystem again, and can't access the upper filesystem.

unionfs allows deep integration of two filesystem hierarchies to create a new and composite hierarchy. When you "cd" into a subdirectory, you continue to be in the virtual unionfs filesystem. When you try to make a new file, the upper filesystem is modified, no matter how deep in the composite hierarchy you are. That is the functionality that is not supported.

Shantonu Sen
email@hidden


Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Filesystem-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: union mounts not supported?
      • From: Dan Shoop <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: union mounts not supported? (From: "Quinn \"The Eskimo!\"" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: union mounts not supported? (From: "Quinn \"The Eskimo!\"" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: union mounts not supported?
  • Next by Date: Re: union mounts not supported?
  • Previous by thread: Re: union mounts not supported?
  • Next by thread: Re: union mounts not supported?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread