[Unionfs] unionfs 1.6 release

[Vasily Tarasov]

On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:28 +0400, Vasily Tarasov wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 11:51 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I meant the branch-management ioctls. And at the moment I'm in the
> process of creating script for (re-)mounting unionfs 2.0 without these
> iotctl on 2.6.20 kernel ;) If it'll be ok, we probably will use unionfs
> 2.0 on 2.6.18 too.
> 
> However I don't think that the races during branch-management ioctls are
> severe problem in case of LiveCD. We only add branches once during boot:
> no other actions ;)
> 
> I tell you why we need 2.6.9. OpenVZ community supports now three
> kernels:
> 2.6.9-rhel4-based
> 2.6.18-based
> 2.6.18-rhel5-based
> 2.6.20-based.
> And some people prefer to use 2.6.9-rhel4-based kernels on the
> rhel4/centos4 nodes, because they consider the system to be more
> "solid".
> 
> Thank you for your help I'll inform you about the progress. ;)
> 
> Vasily.

Hello,

I just want to inform you that we successfully use unionfs 2.0 with
2.6.20 kernel on our LiveCD.

Thank you for the help,
Vasily.