Thought so :) It has to be one of the modules since mount returned
ENODEV.
But I didn't suspect it to be 9p since I was under a presumption that
without 9p you wouldn't have gotten as far as running xcpufs and running
x{group,user}set.
-- Abhishek
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 17:08 -0700, Josh England wrote:
> Wait. Pilot error. I don't have the 9p module loaded.
>
> -JE
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Abhishek Kulkarni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Josh,
> >
> > The default namespace is usually set up in this way -
> >
> > Bind /mnt/term/ /mnt/sandbox
> > Bind /mnt/term/home /mnt/sandbox/home
> > Bind /dev /mnt/sandbox/dev
> > Bind /proc /mnt/sandbox/proc
> > Bind /sys /mnt/sandbox/sys
> > chroot /mnt/sandbox
> >
> > It might happen that procfs or sysfs is not enabled and I think xnamespace
> > might fail in that case.
> > Can you check the output of your /proc/filesystems to confirm that you have
> > all of them enabled?
> >
> > -- Abhishek
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 23:41 +0000, Josh England wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> I'm jumping back into xcpu after a long absence so I don't know if my
> >> setup is wrong or if this is a bug. Running out of the xcpu2 branch,
> >> I've got xcpufs running and groups/users set, but 'xrx node0 date'
> >> gives me:
> >> xnamespace failed: : No such device
> >>
> >> What's hosed? Tell me I missed a step somewhere.
> >>
> >> -JE
> >
> >
