Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-20 Thread Dario Freni
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.

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-19 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-19 Thread Daichi GOTO
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,

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-17 Thread Danny Braniss
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)

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-17 Thread Jacques Marneweck
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-17 Thread Alexander Leidinger
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-17 Thread Scott Long
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-17 Thread Kris Kennaway
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-16 Thread Scott Long
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

RE: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-16 Thread Jan Mikkelsen
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. ___

RE: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-16 Thread Peter Blok
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

patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-15 Thread Daichi GOTO
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

patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-15 Thread Daichi GOTO
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-15 Thread Daichi GOTO
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

Re: patchset-9 release (Re: [unionfs][patch] improvements of the unionfs - Problem Report, kern/91010)

2006-03-15 Thread Daichi GOTO
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