From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL -mm] Unionfs branch management code
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <20070409104948.2bc99202.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <11761304521844-git-send-email-jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:53202 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753276AbXDIRt5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:49:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <11761304521844-git-send-email-jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon,  9 Apr 2007 10:53:51 -0400 "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:

> The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
> well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks.

I have a mental note that unionfs is in the "stuck" state, due to general
agreement that we should implement this functionality at the VFS level, one
reason for which is unionfs's upper-vs-lower coherency problems.

Am I wrong?