On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan pter...@gmail.com wrote:
Well unionfs seemed to get different oops in each new version. Anyway
I don't think it should be done like this (having specific code for
unionfs everywhere).
I want to improve current chroot mode (like using a cgroup to easily
On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan pter...@gmail.com wrote:
Well unionfs seemed to get different oops in each new version. Anyway
I don't think it should be done like this (having specific code for
unionfs everywhere).
I want to improve current chroot mode (like using a cgroup to easily
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 16:07, Thierry Vignaud thierry.vign...@gmail.comwrote:
On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan pter...@gmail.com wrote:
Well unionfs seemed to get different oops in each new version. Anyway
I don't think it should be done like this (having specific code for
unionfs
On 18 March 2012 00:42, r...@mageia.org wrote:
Revision 3550 Author pterjan Date 2012-03-18 00:42:31 +0100 (Sun, 18 Mar
2012)
Log Message
Kill unionfs support
Why?
It was a nice speedup when used.
It was disabled only b/c of a kernel oops long ago
which should be OK now
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:24, Thierry Vignaud
thierry.vign...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2012 00:42, r...@mageia.org wrote:
Revision 3550 Author pterjan Date 2012-03-18 00:42:31 +0100 (Sun, 18 Mar
2012)
Log Message
Kill unionfs support
Why?
It was a nice speedup when used.
It was
On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan pter...@gmail.com wrote:
Why?
It was a nice speedup when used.
It was disabled only b/c of a kernel oops long ago
which should be OK now
Well unionfs seemed to get different oops in each new version. Anyway
I don't think it should be done like this
