From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 29 10:34:56 2004
Return-Path: <owner-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 E4EDD16A4CE; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:34:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from robbins.dropbear.id.au (041.c.007.mel.iprimus.net.au
	[210.50.82.41])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 33B0D43D49; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:34:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au)
Received: by robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id C5B314214; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:37:24 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:37:24 +1000
From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
To: Paul Seniura <pdseniura@techie.com>
Message-ID: <20040629103724.GA25753@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
References: <20040628212811.W658@korben.in.tern>
	<20040628215640.C14935C29@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040628215640.C14935C29@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: Carl Makin <carl@xena.IPAustralia.gov.au>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: Lukas Ertl <le@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Q's about IBM TSM (was Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat
	headedfor history)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:34:57 -0000

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:56:40PM -0500, Paul Seniura wrote:

> I google'd and didn't like what I saw.  Stuff about
> nullfs not being too kosher on -Current.  :(

There seems to be a lot of superstition surrounding nullfs, but I only
know of one outstanding reproducible problem with it in -current (sockets
and fifos aren't handled correctly and cause panics.) If you can spare the
time to experiment, I suggest trying it, then filing a PR if you encounter
any problems. There's no guarantee that these problems will be addressed
right away, but it will give others more solid information than rumours
to go by when deciding whether or not to use nullfs, and well-documented
problems are much more likely to get fixed.


Tim