Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:10:09 +0200 From: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Should DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS messages be reported as bugs? Message-ID: <2B571D55-0B24-4E75-AA5B-4CCF9D3B8CD5@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <567B4E08.1000204@rawbw.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2B571D55-0B24-4E75-AA5B-4CCF9D3B8CD5>