On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Erez Zadok wrote:
>
> Check out my latest set of patches (which correspond to release 2.2.4 of
> Unionfs). Thanks to your info and the patch, I was able to trigger several
> races more frequently, and fix them. I've tested my code with make -j N
> (for N=4 and N=20), on a 4
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> Hi Erez,
>
> Aside from the occasional "unionfs: new lower inode mtime" messages
> on directories (which I've got into the habit of ignoring now), the
> only problem I'm still suffering with unionfs over tmpfs (not tested
> any other fs's bel
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hugh Dickins writes:
> Hi Erez,
>
> Aside from the occasional "unionfs: new lower inode mtime" messages
> on directories (which I've got into the habit of ignoring now), the
> only problem I'm still suffering with unionfs over tmpfs (not tested
> any other fs's belo
Hi Erez,
Aside from the occasional "unionfs: new lower inode mtime" messages
on directories (which I've got into the habit of ignoring now), the
only problem I'm still suffering with unionfs over tmpfs (not tested
any other fs's below it recently) is oops in unionfs_copy_attr_times.
I believe I'm
4 matches
Mail list logo
