Lou Gosselin:
> I did get around to trying the patch.
> It did not patch cleanly against aufs2/34.
> The patch looks for "!!" in various places where as the original doesn't
> contain these "return !!au_test_subdir(h_d1, h_d2)"?
My base version was different from yours, sorry.
I have just made M
J R,
I did get around to trying the patch.
It did not patch cleanly against aufs2/34.
The patch looks for "!!" in various places where as the original doesn't
contain these "return !!au_test_subdir(h_d1, h_d2)"?
Not sure what that's supposed to signify, but I went ahead an applied
the changes b
Lou Gosselin:
> I'm compiling against kernel 2.6.34.1.
> Hmm, I'm looking at the source code and cannot find the aufs version.
> Anyways it was a recent git.
The version string is printed at boot time.
It should be "2-stdalone-34-YyyyMmDd" or "2-34".
The reason I think caseE will work is,
- the
I'm compiling against kernel 2.6.34.1.
Hmm, I'm looking at the source code and cannot find the aufs version.
Anyways it was a recent git.
sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Lou Gosselin:
>
>> Test Case E # This won't work without the modified aufs...
>> > mkdir -p union a/mnt/or
I will review, thanks.
sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Lou and Barry,
>
> Here is a new specification and a patch about overlapping, please review
> and test it if you have time.
>
> - /au = /br0 + /br1 ... + /brN
> - /brX/dirA exists
> - /brX/fs.img exists
>
> old-spec
sf...@users.sourceforge.net:
> Lou Gosselin:
> > Test Case E # This won't work without the modified aufs...
> > > mkdir -p union a/mnt/original_files
> > > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs a/mnt
> > > mkdir -p a/mnt/new_mount_files
> > > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:a:a/mnt
> > > find
>
> I am reviewing
Hi Lou,
Lou Gosselin:
> Test Case E # This won't work without the modified aufs...
> > mkdir -p union a/mnt/original_files
> > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs a/mnt
> > mkdir -p a/mnt/new_mount_files
> > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:a:a/mnt
> > find
I am reviewing the behaviour of overlapping, and f
Lou Gosselin:
> sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> > Ah, we should compare vfsmount mount instead of super_block.
:::
> Yes, well, I'll have to read up to see what the differences are since I
> don't have a kernel hacking background.
> Let me know if there's any testing or anything you'
I wanted to share this link about the difference between vfsmount and
super_block for the benefit of anyone else following this thread.
www.faqs.org/docs/kernel_2_4/lki-3.html
"3.5 Superblock and Mountpoint Management
Under Linux, information about mounted filesystems is kept in two
separate st
sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>>> BTW I think it makes more sense to make the overlap error change in the
>>> test_overlap function in branch.c than in dcsub.c where I previously
>>> indicated.
>>>
>>> if (h_d1->d_sb != h_d2->d_sb) return 0;
>>>
>> Agreed.
>> I will add it next re
> > BTW I think it makes more sense to make the overlap error change in the
> > test_overlap function in branch.c than in dcsub.c where I previously
> > indicated.
> >
> > if (h_d1->d_sb != h_d2->d_sb) return 0;
>
> Agreed.
> I will add it next release.
Ah, we should compare vfsmount mount
Lou Gosselin:
> Test Case E # This won't work without the modified aufs...
> > mkdir -p union a/mnt/original_files
> > mount -t tmpfs tmpfs a/mnt
> > mkdir -p a/mnt/new_mount_files
> > mount -t aufs aufs union -o br:a:a/mnt
> > find
:::
> Therefor, in the resulting union there is no i
J R,
I'd be willing to test more scenarios if you want me to.
The examples don't show it, but my interest is in making aufs unions
work on the root of the file system, unless we can show that something
is broken by doing that.
BTW I think it makes more sense to make the overlap error change in
Hi JR,
Thank you for your response!
sf...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> In this case, when dir_a/mnt_b/file_c exists, it will apeear in two
> places union/mnt_b/file_c and union/file_c, won't it?
> If you make some change about union/mnt_b/file_c, the change may not
> appear about union/file_c.
Hello Lou,
Thanks for detailed reserach.
Lou Gosselin:
> I've been encountering the "dir is overlapped" error when using aufs.
> I'd like to point out there are some scenarios where the "overlap" is
> desirable, and not harmful.
:::
> Test Case E # inner mount
> > mount -t aufs aufs uni
15 matches
Mail list logo
