From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 8 9:24:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from wcn4.wcnet.net (mail.wcnet.net [216.88.248.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D9F37BB70; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 09:24:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jestess@wcnet.net) Received: from wcnet.net [216.88.251.88] by wcn4.wcnet.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.00) id AD3468BB022C; Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:24:20 -0500 Message-ID: <38EF5E0D.1B06FDD5@wcnet.net> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 11:27:57 -0500 From: John Estess X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, adrian@freebsd.org, kris@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd@unix-consult.org Subject: UNIONFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Timo, Please send your crash dump to me. While I have yet to cause a panic using unionfs, I've noticed a few interesting things - like the inability to umount(no kidding - am I doing something wrong?). Also, a whiteout file was affected. Yes, I'll recheck that - that didn't make sense. I've perused the mailing lists for the union fs and read the scant info in the D&I book, but I want to make sure there isn't a RFC or something for this fs. Is there some guidance besides the source code for this thing or is this a "let your conscience be your guide" scenario? Also, I've switched back to 4.0-Stable because I don't want to ride out the significant 5.0-Current changes coming down the pike . Since the Unionfs doesn't work anyway, can the powers-that-be update both Current and Stable in this case? It would be nice to development this in a working environment. Also, is the vfs code slated for massive overhaul soon? This thread needs to go to freebsd-fs. John Estess jestess@wcnet.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message