Re: AUFS incorrectly identifies files as directories.
Marty Rosenberg: One user told me there is a conflict of symbol in aufs and in unionfs. Did you load or build unionfs into your kernel? ::: I compiled aufs as a module, by modifying linux/fs/Kconfig, and whatnot. Although I am unsure, won't you try aufs with vanilla kernel, and without unionfs? And thank you very much for your offer. I will ask you something to test in the future. Currently I don't, except this (above) one. Junjiro Okajima Sorry if I didn't say what I was using. for the battery of tests I did, I used a vanilla kernel, and I dind't have the unionfs module compiled at all. It was the aufs module that was built by piggybacking into the kernel's make structure. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
Re: Possible to 'invalidate cache'?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BUG at /root/aufs.wcvs/aufs/fs/aufs/super.c:357! must be a bug in aufs. I will fix it as soon as possible. Please apply this patch, which is against the latest source in CVS. If you success, it will be included in next release. This patch is only for BUG at super.c:357 only. I applied the patch, and it seems to have worked great. But I also tried reproducing the bug with the old source, and it doesn't seem to work. That is, I can't get a new BUG at super.c:357. I mount /storage, do a mount -o remount,udba=inotify /storage, and it seems to work. (NOTE: this is this weeks monday release, *not* the version I was running when I first stumbled upon BUG at super.c:357) So either there were other conditions to cause my BUG @ super.c:357, or the newest CVS fixed the problem by itself. In any case, thanks a lot. :-) Kindest regards, Jørgen Tjernø. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
Re: Possible to 'invalidate cache'?
Jrgen_P._Tjern: So either there were other conditions to cause my BUG @ super.c:357, or = the newest CVS fixed the problem by itself. There is a condition to reproduce this bug. $ cd /your/aufs/subdir $ sudo mount -o remount,udba=inotify /your/aufs then you will meet BUG @ super.c:357 again. It means the subdir is in use, and aufs tries some processing at remount-time. If you didn't use any of subdir, you would not meet the bug. I guess the samba service daemon refered a subdir when the first time you met the bug. Junjiro Okajima - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
