Subject: Re: union whiteouts persistence intentional?
To: None <>
From: Chapman Flack <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/06/2006 20:49:19
theo borm wrote:
> I hadn't thought of it that way. And I'm not quite sure if it works
> that way. In fstab you can give -o union to mounts, but this doesn't

I think -o union is something different entirely. :/

From one of my fstabs:

/class/dist0/src /usr/src null rw,hidden
/class/local0/src /usr/src union rw,hidden

> Most usefull behaviour to me would be something like a mount option
> "-o non-persistent-whiteouts", but I guess this would require one to

You know, I wonder how many people on this project actually actively
use the wiki over at  One of the things that really seems
to drag it back is the way good ideas go whizzing by in the mailing
lists, and are never heard from again. I wouldn't be surprised if the
list archives contain greatly improved layerfs five times over, if there
were a way to assemble 14 years of mail fragments into a design.