On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 08:54:02AM +0200, Werner Schulte wrote: > Josef Sipek wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:51:49PM -0500, Aaron Tygart wrote: > > > > > >>>mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/hdb1/somedir:/hdb1/otherdir=ro unionfs /mnt > >>>results in > >>> > >>>mount: special device unionfs does not exist. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Looks like you might have forgotten to specify '=rw' or '=ro' for the > >>topmost dir. > >> > >> > > > >That shouldn't matter. It defaults to rw if no mode is specified. > > > > > Correct!, that doesnt work as well.
What do you mean? I just tried: mount -t unionfs -o dirs=d1:d2=ro unionfs union and it worked just fine. # cat /proc/mounts ... unionfs /n/lower/union unionfs rw,dirs=/n/lower/d1=rw:/n/lower/d2=ro,debug=0,delete=whiteout 0 0 > I assume that it has something to do with the mount version. > I am on Debian Sarge. Mount version is 2.12r. FC4, 2.12p > What is the idea ? mount requires a device file as second last > parameter. Is the "unionfs" parameter meant to somehow "dummy" the parameter. Exactly. You can use any string that mount likes. Some people use "none" but that can get confusing when you try to unmount it, and get a message like: umount: none is busy > Another thing I observed is, that during tries, the unionfs usage count > (lsmod) increased, but no mount were visible (no mount, nor unionctl). > This leaded to an unresonsive "halt" statement. Id had to swicth off the > host again. Thats a nasty one. Hrm. Did the module load without any problems? Jeff. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
