On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 13:35 -0500, Josef Sipek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:34:52PM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote: > > I've given up on trying to fix the putmap code for now, this patch > > builds on my previous patch, basically removes all > > putmap/branchget/branchput code. and seems very stable (able to > > complete my postmark while branching every 60s torture test that > > everything for a long time has failed on). > > Sound good, but... > > > obviously if you want to remove branches from an active union, this > > isn't the best thing for one to use. > > ...this is a problem. (At least if I understand this correctly.)
I don't disagree, but I wasted too much time trying to debug the real problem, so I just avoided it, as not neccessary for my needs. But it seems to prove the problem is in the _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
