Hello,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:42:29PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:40:04PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:00:03PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:15PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov w
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:40:04PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:00:03PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:15PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > If so, unionmount could be used with a bootstrap filesystem in the
> > > case of
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:00:03PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:15PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:21:59AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> > If so, unionmount could be used with a bootstrap filesystem in the
>
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:59:15PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:21:59AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > It *might* be useful to union-mount the bootstrap filesystem -- I'm
> > just not sure whether it's even possible in theory :-)
>
> I think I must as
Hello,
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 07:21:59AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> (Most of this is only for the record, as we already discussed it on
> IRC.)
I will only give some short comments to those points about which I
have to say something.
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:52:44PM +0300, Ser
Hi,
(Most of this is only for the record, as we already discussed it on
IRC.)
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:52:44PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> * fsys_goaway: both the unionfs (unionmount) and the mountee should go
> away.
Actually, it should be forwarded completely in the transparent case.
uni
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:17:15PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> The best situation would be if the file handle could be easily
> avoided, on which matter I cannot comment right away without a deeper
> investigation of nfsd. I think that avoiding file handles is worth
> the effort, but then
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:24:32PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 08:17:10PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 02:40:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is this really a problem? The question is whether nfsd can dea
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 08:17:10PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 02:40:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > Well, I don't know exactly why, but I do know that NFS needs some
> > stable representation of nodes. I remember how in a talk about some
> > Linux f
Hello,
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 02:40:49AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18:58AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > Also
Hello,
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 02:23:28AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > I also checked the implementation of fsys_forward in libdiskfs and
> > found that it returns EOPNOTSUPP. Since libdiskfs usually has all
> > nece
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > > * fsys_se
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> * fsys_goaway: Both the mountee and unionmount should go away.
Actually, it should be sufficient to forward to the mountee -- in
transparent mode, the unionmount translator should always go away
automatically once the mountee i
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> I also checked the implementation of fsys_forward in libdiskfs and
> found that it returns EOPNOTSUPP. Since libdiskfs usually has all
> necessary stuff implemented properly (as different from libnetfs and
> libtrivfs), I'd say
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18:58AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Also note that no other program but nfsd in the Hurd source tree uses
> fsys_getfile and f
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> It was agreed that unionmount should forward some of the RPCs invoked
> on its control port to the mountee. Most (if not all) of such RPCs
> are the fsys_* ones. I've made up a list of RPCs which should be
> proxied in my op
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > > * fsys_
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > Well, the fact that currently unionmount functionality is implemented
> > as additional option of unionfs should not influence the set of
> > use-cases.
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 03:41:51PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > * fsys_set_options: This RPC should be forwarded to the mountee
> > > completely. un
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > It was agreed that unionmount should forward some of the RPCs invoked
> > on its control port to the mountee. Most (if not all) of such RPCs
> > are the
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:55:37PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> It was agreed that unionmount should forward some of the RPCs invoked
> on its control port to the mountee. Most (if not all) of such RPCs
> are the fsys_* ones. I've made up a list of RPCs which should be
> proxied in my opini
21 matches
Mail list logo
