Jacques Marneweck ha scritto:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:25:33PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Another panic, this time from umount -f:
panic: union_lock: wrong vnode (un == null)
db wh
Tracing pid 17750 tid 100151 td 0xc7c38a20
kdb_enter(c07273ef,2,c0720d69,ee2d2aa0,c7c38a20) at
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 06:25:33PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote:
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Another panic, this time from umount -f:
Thanks for your reports, Kris.
OKay, we'll try to fix those panic problems when
we have time :)
--
Daichi GOTO,
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1)
Danny Braniss wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
just a 'me too'. I've been
Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
definitely
better than the panics with the unpatched version. in other words,
IMHO, it does not break anything, and it actualy fixes
Jacques Marneweck wrote:
Danny Braniss wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
just a
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:04:36PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
just a 'me too'. I've been running with the patch(under 6.1) and it's
definitely
better than the panics with the unpatched version. in other
Daichi GOTO wrote:
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Regards,
Jan Mikkelsen.
___
PROTECTED]; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; 'Mars G. Miro'
Subject: Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the
unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)
Daichi GOTO wrote:
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Patchset-9:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p9.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p9.diff
Changes in unionfs-p9.diff
- Now you can use unionfs with nullfs. To fix the
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
Patchset-9:
For 7-current
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs-p9.diff
For 6.x
http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p9.diff
Changes in unionfs-p9.diff
- Now you can use unionfs with nullfs. To fix the
Mars G. Miro wrote:
Daichi-san,
I have updated the patchset-9 of unionfs.
We've been using an in-house LiveCD toolkit that uses unionfs (where
cd9660 is the lower layer) and all I can say is that these patches are
very important, at least on = 6.X, otherwise things would just not
work. I
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Daichi GOTO wrote:
All folks have interests in improved unionfs should keep attentions
and ask how about merge? at every turn :)
OK. How about a merge?
I'd really like to see this in 6-STABLE.
Me too, but unfortunately it is difficult with some reasons
(detail
15 matches
Mail list logo