In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes: > > On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 03:24 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vasily Tarasov writes: > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > Can you tell me, please, is there ETA for unionfs 1.6 (against 2.6.20 > > > kernel)? It's marked as "coming soon" on the web-site... > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Vasily. > > > > Vasily, we've done even better: we've back-ported Unionfs 2.0 to 2.6.20 (as > > well as 2.6.19, 2.6.18, and 2.6.21). See > > <http://unionfs.filesystems.org/>. Please let us know how well these > > back-ports work for you. > > > > Cheers, > > Erez. > > Thank you, Erez. However we needed Unionfs 1.0. :) > > The thing is that we're creating OpenVZ (openvz.org) LiveCD, that will > able to boot from several kernels: 2.6.9, 2.6.18 and 2.6.20. The LiveCD > uses unionctl tool and it works great for 2.6.9/2.6.18 kernels, because > we use unionfs 1.0 for these kernels. But unionfs 2.0, that is only > available for 2.6.20 kernel, doesn't support ioctls that unionctl > produces. :)
Do you mean the branch-management ioctls? If that's the only difference, we can work around it easily (wrapper scripts, for example). Or did you write programs that use the ioctl(2) syscall directly? The branch-management ioctls in 1.0 were really racy; the remount-based branch-management is not just race free, but also the "approved" way that the kernel folks prefer. Unionfs 2.0 has so much new stuff, not to mention fixes; perhaps you'd consider using 2.0 for kernels 2.6.18 and higher, and special case 2.6.9? Or maybe I'll now have to see if we can backport the 2.6.18 code to 2.6.9? That's going to be an interesting adventure. :-) Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
