Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:40:32 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: Uwe Doering <gemini@geminix.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Your CVS fix 1.109 to union_vnops.c Message-ID: <20041004124032.GA22153@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <416069E2.6030403@geminix.org> References: <41601BE0.4050401@geminix.org> <200410031805.i93I5JNZ009076@sana.init-main.com> <20041003183237.GA8100@VARK.MIT.EDU> <41605620.90407@geminix.org> <20041003200803.GA8668@VARK.MIT.EDU> <416069E2.6030403@geminix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 11:06:42PM +0200, Uwe Doering wrote: > > As to your concern, in CURRENT this might be fixed already. There, the > unionfs vnode doesn't have an object attached. Instead, calls to > VOP_GETVOBJECT() get forwarded to the underlying file, so the same > object gets referred as for direct modifications of that file. That > should rule out any coherency problems, IMHO. > > Unfortunately, AFAIK, this fix has never been MFC'ed to 4-STABLE. The > respective CVS commits are union_subr.c (rev. 1.51) and union_vnops.c > (rev. 1.82). Any chances they will get merged before 4.11-RELEASE? ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041004124032.GA22153>