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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001c64904$ec16c590$8a01a8c0>