Re: unionfs 5.4

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, 15:19-0000, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 04:49:07PM +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> > >>>>> "Mathieu" == Mathieu Arnold <mat_at_mat.cc> writes:
> >
> >  Mathieu> I'm not answering to your question, but what's the need of a
> >  Mathieu> ro unionfs, a ro nullfs would do the same, no ?
> >
> > It seems that nullfs much slower.
>
> But it works, and doesn't panic the system.  unionfs is
> well-documented to be broken, and this is unlikely to change in the
> near future.

As kern/77251 says this is a recent regression.

-- 
Maxim Konovalov