From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org  Thu Dec 24 07:10:18 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C77EA50983
 for <freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from kabab.cs.huji.ac.il (kabab.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.116.210])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58B451989
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from chamsa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.19])
 by kabab.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
 id 1aC02L-0006vk-DR; Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:10:09 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: Should DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS messages be reported as bugs?
From: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
In-Reply-To: <567B4E08.1000204@rawbw.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:10:09 +0200
Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>,
 Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B571D55-0B24-4E75-AA5B-4CCF9D3B8CD5@cs.huji.ac.il>
References: <567791E9.50207@rawbw.com> <56779542.8020205@rawbw.com>
 <1331010544.139156804.1450706805234.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca>
 <CE48BB9B-2FB0-4427-AC5E-4F0EDAAC8CC4@cs.huji.ac.il>
 <567B4E08.1000204@rawbw.com>
To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:10:18 -0000


> On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:44, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 12/22/2015 01:34, Daniel Braniss wrote:
>> I have been using unionfs for a very long time, mounting /etc (nfs =
read only) and md
>> whiteout any problems. I=E2=80=99m not sure if i tested it on 11, but =
i will soon.
>> yes, it can be problematic for other crazy things, but in my case, =
where many of
>> my hosts are dataless so the unionfs is a great simplifier:-)
>>=20
>> just my 2 cents.
>>=20
>=20
> I tried to replace nullfs+unionfs with unionfs+unionfs, and got the =
same messages using the kernel with the same debug options.
> So it is dangerous.
>=20

I just turned off WITNESS/INVARIANTS :-)
the only complain I get is when I do a mountd restart, but it=E2=80=99s =
harmless.

	danny
> Yuri
>=20