Am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2005 10:35 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Wilhelm Meier:
> > O.k., I see the point. But: why does unionfs lookup a whiteout in a
> > read-only branch?
>
> I don't know the reason and I expect the other person will reply.
>
> But your question showed me a good point. If I replace the word
> 'read-only' into 'lowest branch', yes, the number of looking up
> the whiteouted entry can be reduced. Of course it is based upon that
> unionfs is working correctly, eg. whiteout never exists on the same
> branch of the actual entry.
>
> And currect unionfs lookup code checks the passed filename ('fileB' or
> '.wh.fileB') first, by is_validname(), before any actual lookup.Thank you for this advice. On the server-side unionfs-module I commented the is_validname(). Now, the lookup of whiteout-entries doesn't return ENOPERM and it works as it should. But with the drawback, that you can create .wh.foo whiteouts, which are not even listed ... Would it be possible to integrate this "feature" into the main-line as stated above, only for ro-branches? Possibly this should be done in unionfs_lookup_backend(), when iterating over the branches. Does this break other things? > > > Junjiro Okajima > _______________________________________________ > unionfs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs -- -- Wilhelm Meier email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
