From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:25:43 -0600 From: "Latchesar Ionkov" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P vs. FUSE In-Reply-To: <13426df10708101116i62ef09f4h6e27f97cbb952934@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070810114225.GF18939@nibiru.local> <2d66a95ea087868174cfdc519a48a2d7@9netics.com> <20070810123336.GG18939@nibiru.local> <13426df10708100851i7a385abbx2aa8e83ec32ff74b@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10708101116i62ef09f4h6e27f97cbb952934@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4b4e4fa-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 It is not only matter to forward-port it, but also get it accepted into the kernel. I have to check what is the other union mount that Eric mentioned. Deep unions are not that bad as long as you don't have to write and maintain the code :) On 8/10/07, ron minnich wrote: > On 8/10/07, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > > It is not that hard to create few setuid helper programs that make > > Linux support Plan9-like private namespaces. The union mount would be > > tricky, is unionfs accepted in the standard kernel yet? > > > > IIRC the unionfs that is out there is nothing like plan 9 union > mounts. Mine did the simpler Plan 9 thing. I wonder if we could just > get that in. I would have to forward-port 9 year old code. Hmm. > > Deep unions with whiteouts give me the creeps. > > ron > >