On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:37:24PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:56:40PM -0500, Paul Seniura wrote: > > > I google'd and didn't like what I saw. Stuff about > > nullfs not being too kosher on -Current. :( > > There seems to be a lot of superstition surrounding nullfs, but I only > know of one outstanding reproducible problem with it in -current (sockets > and fifos aren't handled correctly and cause panics.) If you can spare the > time to experiment, I suggest trying it, then filing a PR if you encounter > any problems. There's no guarantee that these problems will be addressed > right away, but it will give others more solid information than rumours > to go by when deciding whether or not to use nullfs, and well-documented > problems are much more likely to get fixed. FYI, I use read-only nullfs extensively for package builds (with a static lower layer, and no sockets or fifos in either layer). I haven't had any problems with it. KrisReceived on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 23:39:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:59 UTC