On Jul 25 2008, at 20:00, Daniel Drake was caught saying: > So unionfs is the "formal bug fix for 8.2 going forward", or is it a > Uruguay-specific thing? > > unionfs will involve a kernel change. Are we planning to shift them from > 2.6.22 to 2.6.25 where unionfs has been included, or are we going to > backport unionfs to 2.6.22? > > Also, I am a little wary of unionfs, I have used it in the past and > found it to be buggy and unreliable. It may be better now, but we should > be cautious.
I've done an analysis of the UFS code and it may be possible to have a standalone unionfs module w/o changes to core kernel. See [1] for my email sent to UFS maintainers and list. My concern is that by forking the code this way, we're introducing another variable. However... Erik has been using AUFS[2] as UFS was crashing badly and not allowing sugar to boot. AUFS is completely standalone and requires no changes to the deployed kernel. This is also non-upstream so we should run it through some form of stress test in our desired configuration. ~Deepak [1] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2008-July/005895.html [2] http://aufs.sourceforge.net/ -- Deepak Saxena - Kernel Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel