Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 01:54:41 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: kazz-0@ca2.so-net.ne.jp, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bug in mount_union Message-ID: <199806100454.BAA08663@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <19321.896929928@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Jun 3, 98 08:12:08 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
#define quoting(Jordan K. Hubbard) // > I found a bug in mount_union of 2.2-stable. // // Yikes! Somebody trying to use unionfs in 2.2! ;-) // // Seriously, that's not the only panic you're going to get if you try to // use that code in that branch. AFAIK, it's really only going to be a // practical option for 3.0 unless someone back-ports all the changes // which were necessary to make it truly work in -current. Indeed, last week I thought of using umapfs, just to find all problems above. :( I was planning a scheme to allow use of ffs zip disks in my machines, without having to allow userids to be seen. BTW: This made me think of a umapfs with a command line "one-userid-only" option, to avoid creating a umaptable file. I would even try to do that myself, but I have currently no developing access to a -current machine (pun intended). What do people think of that idea ? Is it worth to give it a try ? Jonny PS: Why ffs zip disks ? Because msdosfs is TOOOOOOOOO slow :), and sometimes it makes my system freeze (I'm searching for causes, but found no real clue yet). PS2: How is VFS code going -current ? Much better than in -stable ? -- Joao Carlos Mendes Luis M.Sc. Student jonny@jonny.eng.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806100454.BAA08663>