It's not clear to me how bad this bug is. It appears that unionfs is
just lying about the link count, because clearly the inode isn't going
away. It appears to me that a unionfs inode link count is just the
sum of the link counts of the underlying inodes, adjusted for whiteout
(see get_nlinks in unionfs.h) and does not control lifetime of
anything. The only reason it caused me a problem is that nfsd (kernel
module) is so defensive; it refuses to serve a file that claims to
have a 0 link count.
-Ken
On 4/14/06, Tomas M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is the patch already included in some unionfs release?
> If not, does it mean it's bad?
>
> Thank you
> Tomas M
> slax.org
>
>
> Kenneth Duda wrote:
> > Junjiro, your patch solved my problem. Thank you.
> >
> > -Ken
> >
> > On 4/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Kenneth Duda":
> >>
> >>> -rw-r--r-- 0 root root 376 Apr 12 22:39 syslog.conf.save
> >>>
> >> :::
> >>
> >>> (2) Anyone seen this before, have any suggestions?
> >>>
> >> I don't know which version of unionfs you use, but this patch will help
> >> you.
> >> http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/pipermail/unionfs/2006-January/001613.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Junjiro Okajima
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unionfs mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> unionfs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
>
_______________________________________________
unionfs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
