i just experienced the above today while trying diskless, and while
ls only seems to return the entries for the topmost directory, files
are accessible if you know the name. no idea if this is of any help.
This is exactly the right pointer, thanks! The problem appears to be
great -- will
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 09:16:44PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
(about union mounts on 3.1 not returning all files with an 'ls' in 3.1
while it did in 3.0)
Is it sorrect that this magic is implemented in sys/kern/vfs_lookup.c?
The odd thing is that AFAICS no-one has made significant changes
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, John Polstra wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
you want to commit?
(after you sir...)
No, really, after you ... :-)
Done
in 3.1 and 4
I just remembered that MNT_UNION occurs in another file which on
investigation turned out to
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, John Polstra wrote:
[...]
Here, you did the union mount on top of an existing mount point (da1).
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this is the only case in
which union mounts are designed to work.
I was led to believe
(about union mounts on 3.1 not returning all files with an 'ls' in 3.1
while it did in 3.0)
Is it sorrect that this magic is implemented in sys/kern/vfs_lookup.c?
The odd thing is that AFAICS no-one has made significant changes to
this code.
i just experienced the above today while trying
Luigi Rizzo lu...@labinfo.iet.unipi.it wrote:
(about union mounts on 3.1 not returning all files with an 'ls' in
3.1 while it did in 3.0)
Is it sorrect that this magic is implemented in sys/kern/vfs_lookup.c?
The odd thing is that AFAICS no-one has made significant changes to
this code.
i
In article e10gzo8-0003ko...@fanf.noc.demon.net,
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Luigi Rizzo lu...@labinfo.iet.unipi.it wrote:
i just experienced the above today while trying diskless, and while
ls only seems to return the entries for the topmost directory, files
are accessible if you know
you want to commit?
(after you sir...)
julian
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, John Polstra wrote:
In article e10gzo8-0003ko...@fanf.noc.demon.net,
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Luigi Rizzo lu...@labinfo.iet.unipi.it wrote:
i just experienced the above today while trying diskless, and while
Julian Elischer wrote:
you want to commit?
(after you sir...)
No, really, after you ... :-)
Seriously, I don't know the code in question very well. I'd rather
not commit it myself.
John
---
John Polstra j...@polstra.com
John D. Polstra
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, John Polstra wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
you want to commit?
(after you sir...)
No, really, after you ... :-)
Done
in 3.1 and 4
julian
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
In article e10fg4c-00013j...@fanf.noc.demon.net,
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
I have been experimenting with union mounts today with a recent
-stable (cvsupped yesterday), and I haven't had much luck.
Because cvsup likes to obliterate local changes,
You might wish to CVSup the repository
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, John Polstra wrote:
[...]
Here, you did the union mount on top of an existing mount point (da1).
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this is the only case in
which union mounts are designed to work.
I was led to believe (last time I read the code) that any
I have been experimenting with union mounts today with a recent
-stable (cvsupped yesterday), and I haven't had much luck.
Because cvsup likes to obliterate local changes, I thought it would be
convenient to keep the altered files on a separate filesystem and use
a union mount to overlay them on
13 matches
Mail list logo
