[Trusty][Saucy][Raring][Quantal][Precise][PATCH 1/1] (no-up) overlayfs: add OVERLAYFS_SUPER_MAGIC to include/uapi/linux/magic.h

Andy Whitcroft apw at canonical.com
Tue Nov 5 13:42:37 UTC 2013


On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 02:44:46PM -0500, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 12:54 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:30:01PM -0500, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2013 12:08 PM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >>> On 04.11.2013 17:44, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> >>>> BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1247769
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury at canonical.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  include/uapi/linux/magic.h |    1 +
> >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/magic.h b/include/uapi/linux/magic.h
> >>>> index 2944278..7993c79 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/magic.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/magic.h
> >>>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> >>>>  #define PSTOREFS_MAGIC		0x6165676C
> >>>>  #define EFIVARFS_MAGIC		0xde5e81e4
> >>>>  #define HOSTFS_SUPER_MAGIC	0x00c0ffee
> >>>> +#define OVERLAYFS_SUPER_MAGIC	0x794c764f
> >>>>  
> >>>>  #define MINIX_SUPER_MAGIC	0x137F		/* minix v1 fs, 14 char names */
> >>>>  #define MINIX_SUPER_MAGIC2	0x138F		/* minix v1 fs, 30 char names */
> >>>>
> >>> I wished the bug report would be helpful in a way to say which other piece of sw
> >>> would like that define in magic.h.
> >>> It probably works as band-aid but I wonder whether it would be cleaner to remove
> >>> the define from fs/overlayfs/super.c and include magic.h instead (to have only
> >>> one define and in the same place)
> >>>
> >>> -Stefan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thanks for the feedback, Stefan.
> >>
> >> I can rework the patch to also remove the define from
> >> fs/overlayfs/super.c if that is best.  I'll also ask for additional
> >> info, in the bug report, to identify which other sw would like the
> >> define in magic.h.
> > I would like to know why this would be no-up as well.  If overlayfs is
> > not following a standard (and I am taking your word that this is so, not
> > confirming it) then it should be going upstream me thinks.
> >
> > -apw
> 
> I added no-op because I didn't see an overlayfs directory in the
> mainline linux ~/fs tree. 

Well yes, this isn't Linus' upstream, but there is an upstream, Mikos
something who looks after it.  We should send it to him still.

-apw




More information about the kernel-team mailing list