Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:34:15 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Jacques Marneweck <jacques@powertrip.co.za> Cc: ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, 'Daichi GOTO' <daichi@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: <441AD6F7.3020105@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <441A819A.5070100@powertrip.co.za> References: <E1FKB02-0004Kv-Tl@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <441A819A.5070100@powertrip.co.za>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Jacques Marneweck wrote: > Danny Braniss 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. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Jan Mikkelsen. >>> >> >>just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's >>definitely >>better than the panics with the unpatched version. in other words, >>IMHO, it does not break anything, and it actualy fixes somethings. >> >>danny >> > > Any ETA to when we can see this merged into 6.1 and 5.5? > > Regards > --jm > Since it's not in HEAD yet, it's pretty improbable that it'll get into 5.5 and 6.1. It would be nice to get it in for 6.2 though. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?441AD6F7.3020105>