Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:01:43 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is nullfs broken in -current? Message-ID: <199509131801.LAA07814@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9509131756.AA02082@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Sep 13, 95 01:56:52 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > # mount -t null -o union /dsk2/src1 /usr/src > >> > # mount -t null -o union /dsk3/src2 /usr/src > >> > # cd /usr/src > >> > # make world > > > This one is a unionfs, not a nullfs. > > No, it is NOT a bloody unionfs! `unionfs' == ``translucent > filesystem''. This is a nullfs using the `union mount' mechanism. > BIG DIFFERENCE. What is the effective operational difference? It seems to me that the problem in this case is not as clear cut unless we assume all problems when using nullfs come from a single line of code. The other example only exercises the nullfs itself instead of the nullfs and the unioning code. I already now the unioning code is broken; it has warts in various file systems (but not in all of them) for lookup aliasing. It looks like it would break for UFS rename, two places in msdosfs, and in the explicit unionfs usage in anycase because of the relookup() bogosity. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509131801.LAA07814>