Thanks for quick fix!
rin
On 2022/09/12 22:10, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Yup!
christos
On Sep 12, 2022, at 5:04 AM, Rin Okuyama wrote:
Hi,
On 2022/09/12 0:42, Christos Zoulas wrote:
@@ -420,11 +423,11 @@ union_statvfs(struct mount *mp, struct s
{
int error;
struct union_mo
Yup!
christos
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 5:04 AM, Rin Okuyama wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022/09/12 0:42, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> @@ -420,11 +423,11 @@ union_statvfs(struct mount *mp, struct s
>> {
>> int error;
>> struct union_mount *um = MOUNTTOUNIONMOUNT(mp);
>> -struct statvfs *sbuf
Hi,
On 2022/09/12 0:42, Christos Zoulas wrote:
@@ -420,11 +423,11 @@ union_statvfs(struct mount *mp, struct s
{
int error;
struct union_mount *um = MOUNTTOUNIONMOUNT(mp);
- struct statvfs *sbuf = malloc(sizeof(*sbuf), M_TEMP, M_WAITOK | M_ZERO);
+ struct statvfs *sb
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:12:11AM +, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
>
> Log Message:
> The union file system is as stable as other layered file systems so
> no longer print a warning to the console.
Erm... I'm not sure I'd say th
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
I used to make heavy use of unionfs, and I had no problems. [...]
Do you mean `union'?
I mean "mount -t union".
`unionfs' was imported 2008/02/18 and was never enabled in any kernel config.
No, I haven't used that one. I didn't even know abou
On Nov 23, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>> My vote would be to remove [unionfs]; it doesn't work and the only reason
>>> it was ever brought in had to do with alleged locking improvements.
>>
>> Is anyone using it?
>
> I used to make heavy use of unionfs, and I had no problems. (Th
My vote would be to remove [unionfs]; it doesn't work and the
only reason it was ever brought in had to do with alleged
locking improvements.
Is anyone using it?
I used to make heavy use of unionfs, and I had no problems. (That
was on a uniprocessor machine several years ago.) I sometimes
In article <2022035848.ga17...@netbsd.org>,
David Holland wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:17:43AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > do you have any plan on fs/unionfs? eg. remove it
>
>My vote would be to remove it; it doesn't work and the only reason it
>was ever brought in
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:17:43AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> hi,
>
> do you have any plan on fs/unionfs? eg. remove it
My vote would be to remove it; it doesn't work and the only reason it
was ever brought in had to do with alleged locking improvements.
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@n
hi,
do you have any plan on fs/unionfs? eg. remove it
YAMAMOTO Takashi
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: hannken
> Date: Mon Nov 21 18:29:23 UTC 2011
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/fs/union: union.h union_subr.c union_vfsops.c union_vnops.c
>
> Log Message:
> Replace flag based
10 matches
Mail list logo
