Hi, On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:30:56PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 09:58:31AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 06:56:41PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > That's why I think I agree with you and I made unionfs sync every > > > unioned directory. > > > > Well, did you actually test how it behaves with really readonly > > filesystems? (Most notably that it doesn't return an error status?) > > As an example of a readonly filesystem I took xmlfs and took a glance > at it's implementation of netfs sync stubs. And then it flashed in my > mind that all implementations of sync stubs that I've seen and which > did nothing returned 0. I can't remember this being specified as a > convention somewhere, though. OK, misunderstanding here: I didn't mean translators that do not implement writing -- I meant filesystems *mounted* readonly. > + /* The index of the currently analyzed filesystem. */ > + int i = 0; You forgot to change it for the second loop... -antrik-
