From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 16 14:25:39 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002EA16A401; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:25:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pblok@bsd4all.org) Received: from altrade.nijmegen.internl.net (altrade.nijmegen.internl.net [217.149.192.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83B943D58; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:25:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pblok@bsd4all.org) Received: from mail.bsd4all.org by altrade.nijmegen.internl.net via 113-9.bbned.dsl.internl.net [82.215.9.113] with ESMTP id k2GEPTB5014791 (8.13.2/2.04); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:25:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost.homebrew.bsd4all.org [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bsd4all.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337335CE7; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:25:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.bsd4all.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (fwgw.homebrew.bsd4all.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 45122-03; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:25:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from ntpc (ntpc [192.168.1.138]) by mail.bsd4all.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0145CE3; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:25:19 +0100 (CET) From: "Peter Blok" To: "'Scott Long'" , "'Daichi GOTO'" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c64904$ec16c590$8a01a8c0@ntpc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <44195BBF.9070805@samsco.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Thread-Index: AcZI9mWURoL51AnGTiewgrPfUxXgswADgGIw X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bsd4all.org Cc: ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "'Mars G. Miro'" Subject: RE: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:25:39 -0000 As a side note. I'm quietly using the patchset and the stability has never been so good as with those patches. Over the years I have tried to use unionfs to mount /usr/ports and /usr/src over NFS while the objects files stayed local at the client side. I was never able to do a complete build, without a crash. With this patchset I haven't had a single crash, even on SMP systems. Lots of kudos for the work -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Scott Long Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:36 PM To: Daichi GOTO Cc: Jan Mikkelsen; ozawa@ongs.co.jp; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; 'Mars G. Miro' Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010) Daichi GOTO wrote: > Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > >> Daichi GOTO wrote: >> >>> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions >>> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :) >> >> >> OK. How about a merge? >> >> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE. > > > Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons > (detail information http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/). > Of course, our patch gives the conditions for integration of > -current OK. For -stable is BAD. > > We must keep the API compatibility of command/library > for integration of -stable. With some technical/specifical > reasons, our improved unionfs has a little uncompatibility. > > For the last time, integration of -stable will be left > to the judgment of src committers and others. > >> Regards, >> >> Jan Mikkelsen. > > Right now, unionfs is somewhat usable for read-only purposes. As long as your work doesn't alter or break the behaviour of read-only mounts, I think it's very much ready to go into CVS. From there it can get wider testing and review and be considered for 6-stable. Since read-write support in the existing code is pretty much worthless, I don't think that there will be a problem justifying the operational changes that you describe in your documentation. Scott _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"