On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:49:01PM +, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > I did not touched unionfs, and have no plans to. It is equally broken in
> > all relevant versions of FreeBSD.
> Heh, heh. I chuckled when I read this. I think he's trying to say
> "it probably won't
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> I did not touched unionfs, and have no plans to. It is equally broken in
> all relevant versions of FreeBSD.
Heh, heh. I chuckled when I read this. I think he's trying to say "it probably
won't ever be fixed". My understanding is that it would require a major redesign
Bezüglich Konstantin Belousov's Nachricht vom 08.03.2017 00:55 (localtime):
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:49:01PM +, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> Hmm, this is going to sound dumb, but I don't recall generating any
>> unionfs patch;-)
>> I'll go look for it. Maybe it was Kostik's?
> I did not touched
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:49:01PM +, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Hmm, this is going to sound dumb, but I don't recall generating any
> unionfs patch;-)
> I'll go look for it. Maybe it was Kostik's?
I did not touched unionfs, and have no plans to. It is equally broken in
all relevant versions of
Hmm, this is going to sound dumb, but I don't recall generating any
unionfs patch;-)
I'll go look for it. Maybe it was Kostik's?
rick
From: Harry Schmalzbauer
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 2:45:40 PM
To: Rick Macklem
Cc: Konstantin
Bezüglich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 07.03.2017 19:44 (localtime):
> Bezüglich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 07.03.2017 13:42 (localtime):
> …
>> Something ufs related seems to have tightened the unionfs locking
>> problem in stable/11. Now the machine instantaniously panics during
Bezüglich Harry Schmalzbauer's Nachricht vom 07.03.2017 13:42 (localtime):
…
> Something ufs related seems to have tightened the unionfs locking
> problem in stable/11. Now the machine instantaniously panics during
> boot after mounting root with Rick's latest patch.
>
> Unfortunately I don't
Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 05.09.2016 23:21 (localtime):
> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 18.08.2016 02:03 (localtime):
>>> Kostik wrote:
>>> [stuff snipped]
insmnque() performs the cleanup on its own, and that default
Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 18.08.2016 02:03 (localtime):
>> Kostik wrote:
>> [stuff snipped]
>>> insmnque() performs the cleanup on its own, and that default cleanup isnot
>>> suitable >for the situation. I think that insmntque1()
Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 18.08.2016 02:03 (localtime):
> Kostik wrote:
> [stuff snipped]
>> insmnque() performs the cleanup on its own, and that default cleanup isnot
>> suitable >for the situation. I think that insmntque1() would betterfit your
>> requirements, your >need to
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:03:33AM +, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Kostik wrote:
> [stuff snipped]
> >insmnque() performs the cleanup on its own, and that default cleanup isnot
> >suitable >for the situation. I think that insmntque1() would betterfit your
> >requirements, your >need to move the
Kostik wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>insmnque() performs the cleanup on its own, and that default cleanup isnot
>suitable >for the situation. I think that insmntque1() would betterfit your
>requirements, your >need to move the common code into a helper.It seems that
>>unionfs_ins_cached_vnode()
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:53:03PM +, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Bez??glich Mark Johnston's Nachricht vom 09.08.2016 08:02 (localtime):
> ???
> >>
> >> Just for anybody else needing unionfs:
> >> https://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch
>
Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Bezüglich Mark Johnston's Nachricht vom 09.08.2016 08:02 (localtime):
…
>>
>> Just for anybody else needing unionfs:
>> https://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch
>>
>> This patch still applies and I'm successfully using this (unmodified) up
Bezüglich Mark Johnston's Nachricht vom 09.08.2016 08:02 (localtime):
…
>>
>> Just for anybody else needing unionfs:
>> https://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch
>>
>> This patch still applies and I'm successfully using this (unmodified) up
>> to FreeBSD-10.3 and
Bezüglich Kurt Jaeger's Nachricht vom 09.08.2016 07:32 (localtime):
> Hi!
>
>> Since then I'm draging a minimal patch which prevents at least the
>> kernel panics for me.
>> Unfortunately I don't have the skills to continue Attilio Raos work.
>>
>> Just for anybody else needing unionfs:
>>
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:02:00AM +0200, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 07.08.2016 23:34 (localtime):
> > Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I had another crash which I'm quite sure was triggered by mount_unionfs:
> > Just in case you are not
Hi!
> Since then I'm draging a minimal patch which prevents at least the
> kernel panics for me.
> Unfortunately I don't have the skills to continue Attilio Raos work.
>
> Just for anybody else needing unionfs:
> https://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch
Is this
Bezüglich Rick Macklem's Nachricht vom 07.08.2016 23:34 (localtime):
> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I had another crash which I'm quite sure was triggered by mount_unionfs:
> Just in case you are not already aware, unionfs is always broken. Read
> the BUGS
> section at the end of "man
19 matches
Mail list logo