On 2/22/07, Adriano Verardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On 2/22/07, Adriano Verardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ron minnich wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I was saying ...
>>
>> I tried both "9p" and "9P".
>>
>> I don't know whether or not there is a specialized mount utils,
>> as in FreeBSD.
>>
>> If not, IMHO, mount should recognize the available fs from /proc.
>> 9p is not listed in /proc/filesystem, also when statically linked in the
>> kernel. I think It should be.
>>
>
> If there is no 9p, 9p2000, or 9P in /proc/filesystems, there is
> something wrong with the way you have built your kernel or kernel
> module.
I see.
When you compile it as a module and than insmod it, do you
> see anything funny in /var/log/messages or dmesg?
I tried all possible ways to configure 9p.
Loadable module: 9p is in the lsmod output.
In-Kernel: in /var/log/dmesg I see "Activated 9P2000 ..."
In any case:
- no reference in /proc/filesystem
- mount -t 9p 127.0.0.1 /mnt -o debug=0xf
-> Unknown file system type '9p'
Just realized there was a bug I fixed a while back "9p: fix bogus
return code checks during initialization" which is probably causing
your problem.
It went in Jan 26th, 2007, which would have been well after 2.6.19 was out.
If its easy, upgrade to 2.6.20 and the problem should go away, if that
isn't easy, backport just the fs/9p from 2.6.20 to 2.6.19. This was
my bad -- there was a period between 2.6.17 and 2.6.20 where I didn't
do a good job regressing stuff, and some bogus return-code checks
slipped in which screw up initialization.
-eric
