From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valerie Aurora Subject: Re: UnionMount status? Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:30:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20100714193053.GC29189@shell> References: <20100319180358.GA3771@shell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Nick Piggin , Dmitry Monakhov , Christoph Hellwig To: Michal Suchanek Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52523 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756109Ab0GNTbM (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:31:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 03:12:28PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > Hello > > FWIW I tried to apply the unionmount patch from submounts branch to my > kernel (2.6.34 Debian kernel) and boot a live system using the kernel. > > The system boots but locks up during init. > > The first boot method uses tmpfs union/squashfs/loop/FUSE(httpfs) or > tmpfs union/squashfs/loop/iso9660/loop/FUSE(httpfs) and triggers the > BUG_ON(*next_ud != NULL); in union_add_dir when udev starts whereas > the other method which uses tmpfs union/squashfs/loop/iso966/iscsi > crashes because at the point when iscsid is started during boot as the > iscsi drive is disconnected for some reason. Thanks for the bug report! I will get to work on that as soon as possible. > As the kernel does not include aufs I cannot easily test that it works > as expected with that but both boot methods used to work with 2.6.32 > kernels and aufs. I think it's quite likely the problem is with union mounts, so don't go to the effort to test aufs just for this case. -VAL