Re: union mounts, mfs, and newsyslog

[matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, David
Holland<dholland-current%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:30:57PM -0400, matthew sporleder wrote:
>  > > If you want to make it work, the first step is probably to figure out
>  > > what it's doing: create a simple test case that exhibits the same
>  > > behavior (this is not necessarily so trivial...) and then poke into
>  > > the kernel to figure out what union_rename thinks it's doing.
>  > >
>  > > However... there are a number of more or less insoluble problems with
>  > > rename and unionfs (in more complicated cases) and you might prefer
>  > > not to get involved.
>  > >
>  > /* ren.c */
>  > [snip]
>  >
>  > I guess when a rename is passed to the lower layer it should be turned
>  > into a copy at the upper layer and then a rename.
>
> Yeah, it should, and I would have thought it would have, but, well,
> it's onionfs. I suspect half the places that should trigger copyups
> don't.
>
> Can you file this in a PR so it doesn't get forgotten? It is unlikely
> that anyone's going to fix it anytime soon, unless you do (and I'd
> sort of advise against trying) but there's always a possibility that
> someone sometime will make a serious try at fixing up unionfs.
>

kern/41678

I saw union and unionfs in the source tree.  Any ideas which one is current?

Thanks for your help.