I have once thought it doesn't need to lookup on the lowest branch only.
But now I think most readonly branch does not need to lookup whiteout,
and it is better to introduce a new option and make it choosable by
user.
How do you think about changing the meaning of 'ro'? > all of users and
developers
If I write a patch, will it be merged?
Hello,
I waited to be able compose/manage my systems on a server with unions of
functionalities (bases + development + server X + ...+ specificities)
and to export these systems by NFS bound for stations without disc. The
new semantics of ro would apparently enable me to do it. In the current
state it is not possible. I encountered the problem which have just
elucidated Junjiro and Wilhelm. Thank you with them. The question thus
remains: why does unionfs lookup has whiteout in A read-only branch?
This new option seems relevant for these cases.
Best Regards.
G. Daval
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
