----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maxim Kammerer" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 21 July, 2012 11:51:35 AM > > Hi James, > > > Sure. I attached my starting patch to BZ656 > > https://bugzilla.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/attachment.cgi?id=246 > > I saw bug #656, but perhaps I misunderstood — does this second patch > fix the issue you reported? I am currently exploring overlayfs, since > it seems like it will be eventually accepted into mainline, so not > sure at the moment when / if I will get to testing your port of > Unionfs to kernel 3.4.
No, the second patch I attached is just the unionfs-2.5.11_for_3.3.0-rc3.diff.gz with a small conflict resolution for 3.4. I assumed from your earlier e-mail that you wanted the starting patch because of the conflict. The first patch contains the changes I made to make unionfs compile for 3.4. This will apply to the second patch I attached. > If you or anyone else on the list is interested: > https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/vfs.git;a=patch;h=refs/heads/overlayfs.v13;hp=36be50515fe2aef61533b516fa2576a2c7fe7664 > > The downloaded git-am patchset can be converted into a proper patch > with: > sed -i '/^diff --git /,/^-- /{/^-- /d; b}; d' > > SHA-256 of resulting proper patch: > ef579f695095c18d5c327e06ffd8d34f43d1cc05f7e56478af2446fae190a6dd So, is development for unionfs basically over and overlayfs is the way forward? Thanks. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
