On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:arch-dev-public- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Simo Leone > > Verzonden: woensdag 26 maart 2008 10:10 > > Aan: [email protected] > > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] kernel26 unionfs/aufs conflict > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:34:37AM +0100, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > to reconsider, you were the guys that wanted those filesystem stuff > > in the > > > kernel, > > > I just add/fix hardware support which doesn't conflict with such > > stuff, so > > > figure out how to fix it send patches that it works for the stuff you > > need > > > it. > > > Checkout Aufs from latest CVS and try to combine it that it works. > > > I don't use any of this filesystems. > > > > > Ok, let's assume for right now that we aren't going to drop either of > > them. Would you, as the kernel maintainer, prefer the in-tree solution > > of effectively aliasing the function names; or the out-of-tree solution > > of patching aufs to deal with unionfs's function names? Either will > > work > > just fine. > > I would prefer to have these symbols exported only once and patch the > package that needs these kernel symbols with a different name. Yes, it's a > little bit more work for the external module maintainer, but it keeps our > kernel cleaner that way.
Agreed. Lets patch aufs if we can to use the unionfs symbol.
