It is not only matter to forward-port it, but also get it accepted into the kernel. I have to check what is the other union mount that Eric mentioned.
Deep unions are not that bad as long as you don't have to write and maintain the code :) On 8/10/07, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/10/07, Latchesar Ionkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is not that hard to create few setuid helper programs that make > > Linux support Plan9-like private namespaces. The union mount would be > > tricky, is unionfs accepted in the standard kernel yet? > > > > IIRC the unionfs that is out there is nothing like plan 9 union > mounts. Mine did the simpler Plan 9 thing. I wonder if we could just > get that in. I would have to forward-port 9 year old code. Hmm. > > Deep unions with whiteouts give me the creeps. > > ron > >
