On 18 March 2012 10:51, Pascal Terjan <[email protected]> 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 (having specific code for > unionfs everywhere). > I want to improve current chroot mode (like using a cgroup to easily > kill all processes or set limits) and have a common api to allow other > modes, like building in kvm for example, or using lvm/btrfs rw > snapshots (which should be better supported than unionfs).
OK
