patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

[Alexander Leidinger]

Danny Braniss <danny at cs.huji.ac.il> wrote:

>> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.

> 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.

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 all,
and therefore isn't used anywhere. Then we could MFC it, since we wouldn't
break something for someone.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net  Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org     netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137
Being a mime means never having to say you're sorry.