Hi,
Unfortunately I haven't had time for this issue yet. As soon as I can
find a simplified test case, I'll let you know. However not sure when
it can be done.
Thanks!
Joonwoo
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:19 AM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Thanks for following up this.
Hi J.R.
Thanks for following up this. Kernel is plain 2.6.32 and has some
patches but all the patches are for PCI and USB device drivers.
>From my side, I'm also trying to narrow down to let me and you this problem.
I'll give you if I'll have any come along on it.
Thanks!
Joonwoo
On Tue, Feb 1,
lookup_wlock_by_ino:411:events/0[5]: wrong root branch
Thanks,
Joonwoo
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> Hi J.R.,
>
> It has been a while after getting this patch.
> But recently I encountered kernel panic and it seems to me this fix is
> somehow related. (either regress
7, 2010 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Thanks for providing me this patch. Patch works flawlessly.
>> FYI, I did my test with patch applied aufs2.1-standalone.tree-32-20101206.
>
> Thank you very much.
> The patch (I already made some minor changes) w
Hello J. R.
Thanks for providing me this patch. Patch works flawlessly.
FYI, I did my test with patch applied aufs2.1-standalone.tree-32-20101206.
Joonwoo
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 AM, wrote:
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Thanks a lot for your feedback on this.
>> I'll be stay t
Hello J. R.
Thanks a lot for your feedback on this.
I'll be stay tuned. Please let me know if you need anything else from my end.
Regards,
Joonwoo
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 AM, wrote:
>
>> Hello Joonwoo,
>>
>> Joonwoo Park:
>> > While I'm exami
Hello,
While I'm examining udba=notify option, I encountered a behavior that
I didn't expect.
I have two directories (/tmp/tmpfs0 and /tmp/tmpfs1) which are
branches of /tmp/aufs0 as well asl /tmp/aufs1... which means two
different /tmp/aufs0 and /tmp/aufs1 are sharing same branches.
However if I
Hi,
Thanks a lot for confirming this.
I'll update and see if it's still happening.
Joonwoo
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:42 PM, wrote:
>
> Hello Joonwoo,
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> While running rpm install command from the underneath partition, I got
>> kern
Hi,
While running rpm install command from the underneath partition, I got
kernel oops below.
I'm using aufs 2-standalone.tree-30-20100308 which is a bit old.
Can you see if this is aufs2 issue?
Thanks,
Joonwoo
fs/aufs/super.h
321 /* --
Hi,
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Sorry for confusion.
>> # mount -t ubifs -o rw /dev/brabra /mnt
>> # ls -al /mnt
>> (error occurs here, .wh.dir doesn't appear)
>
> It seems that is the problem of ubifs.
>
According
Hi
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:51 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> I can read it mostly but since UBIFS switches mount option to
>> read-only when it encounters an error.
>> After mounting as read-write, if I access /mnt/.wh..wh.plnk (with ls
>> -al /mnt) ubifs gets e
Hi Junijiro,
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:19 AM, wrote:
> Since the error came from UBIFS and there is not aufs module for yout
> stacktrace, let's confirm your r/w UBIFS is fine first.
> Can you read and write your r/w UBIFS without aufs?
I can read it mostly but since UBIFS switches mount option
I should have mentioned some more.
I'm using 2.6.30.10 + aufs 2-standalone.tree-30-20100308
A r/w ubifs partition and another r/o ubifs partition constitute my
aufs partition.
Thanks,
Joonwoo
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got following er
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:36 AM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> > Here is my test script. What is the difference?
>> >
>> > sudo mount -o remount,udba=3Dnone .
>>
>> This was the difference. Interesting.
>> I've mounted aufs with udba opt
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:25 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> > - regardless the patch, mount aufs with udba=none
>> > - create a file on ubifs directly (bypassing aufs)
>> > - you can see it in aufs via ls(1) and stat(1)
>> > - but you cannot cat(1)
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:10 AM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> I double checked but looks everything okay on my build.
>> I cannot answer that question because I've always used aufs with udba=3Dino=
>> tify.
>> However with udba=3Dinotify those operations were su
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> > Try setting udba=none.
>> > In udba=reval (default), aufs calls ubifs_getattr() and gets the correct
>> > value.
>>
>> Is it possible to use udba=none in this case?
>> I was under t
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:47 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> This is weird.
>> It still works fine with all different size of regular files
>> regardless my patch applied or not.
>
> Try setting udba=none.
> In udba=reval (default), aufs calls ubifs_getattr() and
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:29 AM, wrote:
> It may depend upon when the ubifs inode is cached and when its i_blocks
> gets the correct value.
> Please try some regular files which contains data, instead of simple
> 'touch.'
> How about the files whose size are 511, 512, 513 bytes?
This is weird.
It
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> So about this change can you suggest me any test cases?
>> Until now I'm running bonnie++ and an application to test mmap functionality.
>
> The main purpose of the tests will be
> - stat(2) famill
t mmap functionality.
Thanks,
Joonwoo
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:17 PM, wrote:
>
> Hello Joonwoo,
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> According to comment of au_test_fs_bad_iattr_size() it should return 1
>> if filesystem doesn't maintain i_blocks.
>> It seems to me ubifs does
Hi,
According to comment of au_test_fs_bad_iattr_size() it should return 1
if filesystem doesn't maintain i_blocks.
It seems to me ubifs doesn't maintain i_blocks like xfs.
Please find attached patch and review it.
Thanks,
Joonwoo
diff --git a/fs/aufs/fstype.h b/fs/aufs/fstype.h
index be664a0..c1
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM, wrote:
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Awesome. it's working smoothly.
>> Could you please consider to apply these patches?
>> It will be great. I'll sign off my patch if you want.
>> Thanks a lot.
>
> Glad to hear that!
>
J. R.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:20 AM, wrote:
> Joonwoo Park:
>> Attached patch looked like solve this problem but no luck.
>> This patch reduced lots of ubifs assertion failures but I'm still
>> seeing assertion failure after large size of mmap writing (actually
&g
Hello J. R.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:06 PM, wrote:
>
> Hello Joonwoo,
>
> Joonwoo Park:
>> The problem that I encountered was ubifs set_page_dirty() assertion
>> failure when mmap-ing to aufs filesystem which has branch as ubifs
>> filesystem.
>> I had a
I'm rejected to post on the list so I'm resending.
Hope it works this time.
Thanks,
Joonwoo
-- Forwarded message ------
From: Joonwoo Park
To: "J. R. Okajima"
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:29:49 -0700
Subject: aufs2 with ubifs mmap problem
Hello,
I've encount
26 matches
Mail list logo
