Joonwoo Park:
> > Try setting udba=none.
> > In udba=reval (default), aufs calls ubifs_getattr() and gets the correct
> > value.
>
> Is it possible to use udba=none in this case?
> I was under the impression if the branch partition (in this case
> ubifs) can be changed directly, I had to set udba as not none (I've
> used inotify)
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct.
The udba=none is just for testing your patch.
With udba=reval or udba=inotify, aufs always returns the correct
ubifs i_blocks value. Since you want to see how your patch changed the
behaviour, you need to set udba=none.
With udba=none and without your patch, aufs returns the incorrect value
of ubifs. Applying your patch, even if you specify udba=none, you can
see the correct value.
> Also I was *not* able to access this file if I try to open this file
> through aufs. it complains no such file or directory even though I
> can 'ls' & 'stat' the file through aufs and ubifs both. (I'm able to
> open file through ubifs though)
:::
> Does this mean there is another issue beside au_test_fs_bad_iattr_size()?
I guess so.
Did you correctly build the aufs module?
Haven't you succeeded such operation before?
J. R. Okajima
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
