Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Feb 13 08:39:40 UTC 2023
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
When mounting a union file system set its lower mount only on success.
Reported-by:
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Feb 13 08:39:40 UTC 2023
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
When mounting a union file system set its lower mount only on success.
Reported-by:
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Feb 6 10:33:32 UTC 2023
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
Set IMNT_MPSAFE only if all lower layers have it set.
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.85 -r1.86
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Feb 6 10:33:32 UTC 2023
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
Set IMNT_MPSAFE only if all lower layers have it set.
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.85 -r1.86
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Nov 21 10:37:14 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
When testing whiteout support on the underlying file system
union_mount() should not use a NULL componentname as not all
file systems can
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Mon Nov 21 10:37:14 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
When testing whiteout support on the underlying file system
union_mount() should not use a NULL componentname as not all
file systems can
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
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
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
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sun Sep 11 15:42:29 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
- avoid another credential leak on error from Chris J-D
(chris at accessvector dot net)
- KNF
- use kmem
To generate a diff of this
Module Name:src
Committed By: christos
Date: Sun Sep 11 15:42:29 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vfsops.c
Log Message:
- avoid another credential leak on error from Chris J-D
(chris at accessvector dot net)
- KNF
- use kmem
To generate a diff of this
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Sat Mar 19 13:48:04 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_subr.c union_vnops.c
Log Message:
As FSTRANS is part of VOP_*LOCK() since June 4, 2017 the vdead_check()
from union_lock() is no longer needed.
Adapt
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Sat Mar 19 13:48:04 UTC 2022
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_subr.c union_vnops.c
Log Message:
As FSTRANS is part of VOP_*LOCK() since June 4, 2017 the vdead_check()
from union_lock() is no longer needed.
Adapt
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Fri Dec 10 09:20:38 UTC 2021
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vnops.c
Log Message:
Fix previous, don't copy up if the underlying node is unreadable.
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.80 -r1.81
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Fri Dec 10 09:20:38 UTC 2021
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vnops.c
Log Message:
Fix previous, don't copy up if the underlying node is unreadable.
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -u -r1.80 -r1.81
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Sun Dec 5 16:16:58 UTC 2021
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vnops.c
Log Message:
In union_access() copy up regular files before checking permissions.
Unionfs is meant to provide a writable layer above a read-only layer
Module Name:src
Committed By: hannken
Date: Sun Dec 5 16:16:58 UTC 2021
Modified Files:
src/sys/fs/union: union_vnops.c
Log Message:
In union_access() copy up regular files before checking permissions.
Unionfs is meant to provide a writable layer above a read-only layer
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 that.
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
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. (That was on a
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 about
In article 2022035848.ga17...@netbsd.org,
David Holland dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org 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
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 union
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
