Subject: Re: Union mount problem?
To: Rolf Grossmann <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <D.K.Brownlee@city.ac.uk>
Date: 10/26/1995 12:47:40
Sounds like a very good addition! (and the patch to mount_union.8
as well :) Presumably an unlink() call just fails with EPERM?
(Or would that be EROFS?? :)
firstname.lastname@example.org +44 171 477 8186 (MIME) email@example.com +44 0181 88 8949
Network Analyst, UCS, City University System Manager, Southern Studios Ltd
Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB PO Box 59, London N22 1AR
<<< Monochrome - Largest UK Internet BBS - telnet mono.org >>>
>=- Microsoft: Abort and Retry Cancel -or- NetBSD: http://www.netbsd.org -=<
(Apologies for long signature - in process of changing jobs)
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Rolf Grossmann wrote:
> on Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:11:25 +0000 (GMT) David Brownlee wrote
> concerning "Re: Union mount problem?" something like this:
> > Is the upper layer a 4.4 filesystem?
> > 4.2 & 4.3 filesystems do not support whiteouts, which unionfs needs.
> What I don't understand is, why does the upper layer *need* to support
> whiteouts in order to be mounted rw? If it doesn't you can't create
> whiteouts, fine, but you can still alter files in the lower layer or
> write new ones.
> I have removed this limitation in my private kernel sources (just a small
> patch) and it works fine for me. Maybe I should send-pr this?
> Bye, Rolf