From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 17 17:31:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF2316A420; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF5243D45; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374221A4EE1; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 94EB2511EF; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:31:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:31:52 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20060317173152.GB27140@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20060317140436.8ap0h9608os8s8w8@netchild.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060317140436.8ap0h9608os8s8w8@netchild.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: ozawa@ongs.co.jp, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, 'Daichi GOTO' , 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) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:53 -0000 --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:04:36PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Danny Braniss wrote: >=20 > >>I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE. >=20 > >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. >=20 > Compare the mount options the current implementation and the completely > rewritten implementation of unionfs is able to understand. There is a > difference. Since it would break a documented interface, we can't MFC it. > Except maybe you can prove that the option in question doesn't work at al= l, > and therefore isn't used anywhere. Then we could MFC it, since we wouldn't > break something for someone. IMO there's absolutely no barrier to getting this one day merged to 6.x, since unionfs is documented to not work in any FreeBSD release since 2.x or earlier. Kris --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEGvKIWry0BWjoQKURAjC2AJ4zgFo9Xev49adP4KY3kuxk5tuIDgCff3OE tkPCaI02kz6y4CL2s3pvXa4= =g9cx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN--