Kris Kennaway wrote:
> I get this panic with mount_unionfs -b:
We cannot get the same kernel panic error. Please give us
a how-to-repeat-the-same-problem in simple way.
> kdb_backtrace(ebf369e8,c056b59a,c06c905a,c06e297e,c72d7000) at
> kdb_backtrace+0x29
> vfs_badlock(c06c905a,c06e297e,c72d7000)
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:46:59PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of
> the unionfs patchset-10.
>
> Patchset-10:
>For 7-current
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff
>
>For 6.x
> http://people.freebsd.o
It is my pleasure and honor to announce the availability of
the unionfs patchset-10.
Patchset-10:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p10.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p10.diff
Changes in unionfs-p10.diff
- Fi
Jacques Marneweck ha scritto:
> Danny Braniss wrote:
>>> Daichi GOTO wrote:
>>>
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
>>> OK. How about a merge?
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>>>
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:25:33PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
>> I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
>
> Another panic, this time from umount -f:
Thanks for your reports, Kris.
OKay, we'll try to fix those panic problems when
we have time :)
--
Daichi GOTO, http:/
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:25:33PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Another panic, this time from umount -f:
panic: union_lock: wrong vnode (un == null)
db> wh
Tracing pid 17750 tid 100151 td 0xc7c38a20
kdb_enter(c07273ef,2,c0720d69,ee2d2aa0,c7c38a20) at kdb_
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:04:36PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>
> >just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
> >definitely
> >better than the panics with the unpatched vers
Jacques Marneweck wrote:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
just a
Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
definitely
better than the panics with the unpatched version. in other words,
IMHO, it does not break anything, and it actualy fixes somethin
Danny Braniss wrote:
>> Daichi GOTO wrote:
>>
>>> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
>>> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
>>>
>> OK. How about a merge?
>>
>> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jan Mikkelsen.
>>
> Daichi GOTO wrote:
> > All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
> > and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
>
> OK. How about a merge?
>
> I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan Mikkelsen.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patc
en; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; 'Mars G. Miro'
Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the
unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
Daichi GOTO wrote:
> Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>
>> Dai
Daichi GOTO wrote:
> All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
> and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebs
Daichi GOTO wrote:
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with som
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask "how about merge?" at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons
(detail inform
Mars G. Miro wrote:
Daichi-san,
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
We've been using an in-house LiveCD toolkit that uses unionfs (where
cd9660 is the lower layer) and all I can say is that these patches are
very important, at least on => 6.X, otherwise things would just not
work. I b
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Patchset-9:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p9.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p9.diff
Changes in unionfs-p9.diff
- Now you can use unionfs with nullfs. To fix the p
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Patchset-9:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p9.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p9.diff
Changes in unionfs-p9.diff
- Now you can use unionfs with nullfs. To fix the p
I have updated the patchset-8-fix1 for 6.x of unionfs.
Patchset-8-fix1 for 6.x:
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p8-fix1.diff
Changes in unionfs6-p8-fix1.diff
- fixed 6.x build failure
So sorry, unionfs6-p8 has a build failure unwittingly :(
--
Daich
Cy Schubert ha scritto:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dario Freni writes:
>> Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
>>> I have updated the patchset-8 of unionfs.
>>>
>>> Patchset-8:
>>>For 7-current
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p8.diff
>>>
>>>For 6.x
>>> http://peopl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dario Freni writes:
> Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
> > I have updated the patchset-8 of unionfs.
> >
> > Patchset-8:
> >For 7-current
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p8.diff
> >
> >For 6.x
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/uni
Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
I have updated the patchset-8 of unionfs.
Patchset-8:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p8.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p8.diff
Changes in unionfs-p8.diff
- Fixed the issue that use
I have updated the patchset-8 of unionfs.
Patchset-8:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p8.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p8.diff
Changes in unionfs-p8.diff
- Fixed the issue that user whom has access permiss
Hi folks
It is congratulations.
I must say thank you for two guys. By some efforts by Yoshihiro OTA-san
and Hiroo ONO-san, we could get full Egnlish-texted description site.
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/
Thanks!
Dario Freni wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
At this moment, we are maki
Dario Freni wrote:
No panics anymore but still got some problems. I have unionfs on /usr
and cannot access /usr/home/freesbie directly (i.e.: if i login as
'freesbie' user right after boot I can't access /usr/home at all,
getting a permission denied error).
To reproduce, download iso from torren
Daichi GOTO wrote:
At this moment, we are making -p8 that solves your problem, Dario.
Please wait -p8, I think you get good satisfaction by -p8 :)
Thank you and Masanori so much for working on this :) The less I can do
is to report feedback and help improving.
Bye,
Dario
___
Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
I have updated the patches:
For 7-current patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p5.diff
For 6.x patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p5.diff
Changes from -p4:
- fixed around
I have updated the patches:
For 7-current patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p5.diff
For 6.x patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p5.diff
Changes from -p4:
- fixed around "can't fifo/vnode bypass -1" panic problem
- added some comments in
> I have updated the patchset-7 (of course patchset-6 exists).
>
> Patchset-7:
> For 7-current
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p7.diff
>
> For 6.x
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p7.diff
>
> changes -p7 from -p6:
> - fixed pr
I have updated the patchset-7 (of course patchset-6 exists).
Patchset-7:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p7.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p7.diff
changes -p7 from -p6:
- fixed problem that removes not empt
Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
> I have updated the patchset-7 (of course patchset-6 exists).
>
> Patchset-7:
>For 7-current
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p7.diff
>
>For 6.x
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p7.diff
>
>changes -p7 from -p6:
Daichi GOTO ha scritto:
> I have updated the patches:
>
> For 7-current patch
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p5.diff
>
> For 6.x patch
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p5.diff
>
> Changes from -p4:
> - fixed around "can't fifo/vnode bypass -
I have updated the patches:
For 7-current patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p5.diff
For 6.x patch
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p5.diff
Changes from -p4:
- fixed around "can't fifo/vnode bypass -1" panic problem
- added some comments in
Matteo Riondato wrote:
I think that on sys/fs/unionfs/union_vfsops.c, line 116, done should
be size_t, to have unionfs compiled on amd64 (and probably other
!32bit archs)
Best Regards
Yes, you are correct. Danny have pointed out the same problem.
It is a careless mistake, so sorry. Please try
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:21:16PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> I have updated the patches:
>
> For 7-current patch:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p3.diff
>
> For 6.x patch:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p3.diff
>
> changes from -p2 to -p3:
> - fixed p
I have updated the patches:
For 7-current patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p3.diff
For 6.x patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p3.diff
changes from -p2 to -p3:
- fixed problem of attribute associated with shadow dir
- fixed lock/unlock problem (-p2
Danny Braniss wrote:
Okey. I found the cause of this problem. I fixed it :)
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p2.diff
can you make the diffs for 6.0?
thanks,
danny
For 7-current patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p2.diff (latest patch)
http:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Masanori OZAWA wrote:
[...]
Nice work! This is just a "works for me". In only find some issues with
permissions that were already present in the previous implementation of
unionfs. Some of them are partially corrected in the "useful" copymode.
I mailed the details to the aut
> Masanori OZAWA wrote:
> [...]
>
> Nice work! This is just a "works for me". In only find some issues with
> permissions that were already present in the previous implementation of
> unionfs. Some of them are partially corrected in the "useful" copymode.
> I mailed the details to the author.
the
Masanori OZAWA wrote:
[...]
Nice work! This is just a "works for me". In only find some issues with
permissions that were already present in the previous implementation of
unionfs. Some of them are partially corrected in the "useful" copymode.
I mailed the details to the author.
I'm scheduling a
6.0-RELEASE needs follow patch:
patch start
diff -urN unionfs.current/fs/union_vfsops.c unionfs/fs/union_vfsops.c
--- unionfs.current/fs/union_vfsops.cWed Dec 28 16:58:04 2005
+++ unionfs/fs/union_vfsops.cWed Dec 28 22:54:20 2005
@@ -435,8 +435,8 @@
unionfs_quotactl(struct mount *mp
I gave a send-pr around the improvement of the unionfs. Please look at
the follow url in specific for interested poeple whom it may committer
or official people who can merge my patches.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=91010
The established unionfs implementaion is weak around thier fu
42 matches
Mail list logo
