Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:21:31 +0100
From:      "Peter Blok" <pblok@bsd4all.org>
To:        "'Scott Long'" <scottl@samsco.org>, "'Daichi GOTO'" <daichi@freebsd.org>
Cc:        'Jan Mikkelsen' <janm@transactionware.com>, ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "'Mars G. Miro'" <marsgmiro@gmail.com>
Subject:   RE: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
Message-ID:  <000001c64904$ec16c590$8a01a8c0@ntpc>
In-Reply-To: <44195BBF.9070805@samsco.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
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"





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001c64904$ec16c590$8a01a8c0>