On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 04:50:12PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > While I was thinking about Wilhelm's question, I've got an idea of new > > option "dirs=<branch>=ro_wh". > > Currently these options are 'ro' and 'rw'. A 'ro_wh' option is > > perfectly equivalent to current 'ro'. But the meaning of 'ro' option > > changes. In case of 'ro', unionfs does not lookup a whiteout entry, but > > 'ro_wh' does. > > I have tried, here is a patch. > This is for simple lookup and unionctl, not including unionfs inode > operations (unionfs_create, etc.).
This adds unnecessary complexity. At least at this point in time, we want to make unionfs stable and cleanly implemented. Jeff. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
