Erez Zadok wrote:
> Al, we have back-ports of the latest Unionfs to 2.6.{22,21,20,19,18,9},
> all in http://unionfs.filesystems.org/. Before we release any change, we
> test it on all back-ports as well as the latest -rc/-mm code base (takes
> over 24 hours straight to get through all of our regressions :-)
I am impressed, thanks!
It's probably a good idea to always point these backports out, whenever
submitting patches against -mm. Otherwise, people might forget.
> So we'd be happy to submit those patches to the latest stable kernel.
> But, are you talking about VFS/ecryptfs patches (which are in the stable
> kernel), or are you talking about Unionfs (which is not)?
I'm talking about Unionfs, which seems like a rather critical feature to
miss-out on. BTW, did you ever get that oops-on-umount worked out?
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
