Re: CVS commit: src/sys/fs/union

["J. Hannken-Illjes" <hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost>]

On Nov 23, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:

>>> My vote would be to remove [unionfs]; it doesn't work and the only reason 
>>> it was ever brought in had to do with alleged locking improvements.
>> 
>> Is anyone using it?
> 
> I used to make heavy use of unionfs, and I had no problems.  (That was on a 
> uniprocessor machine several years ago.)  I sometimes used five layers: a 
> base set of sources; a unionfs layer for third party changes; a unionfs layer 
> for my own changes; a unionfs layer for the "obj" directories; and a final 
> unionfs layer for files created or changed at build time.  For example, I 
> could easily blow away all the build products but keep the obj directories, 
> by unmounting the top layer unionfs, removing the files in its backing store, 
> and then re-mounting it.
> 
> Today, I'd use a smarter revision control system instead of the unionfs 
> layers to manage the source files, but I might still want a unionfs layer to 
> isolate changes made at build time.
> 
> I have not used unionfs in the past few years, but it would be a pity to lose 
> this functionality.

Do you mean `union'?

`unionfs' was imported 2008/02/18 and was never enabled in any kernel config.

--
Juergen Hannken-Illjes - hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost - TU Braunschweig 
(Germany)