Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!pravda.aa.msen.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!not-for-mail From: bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: unionfs usage without "option UNION" Date: 31 Aug 1995 11:16:43 +0200 Organization: EUnet Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Lines: 20 Message-ID: <423ulr$87@Germany.EU.net> References: <DE3uo1.1Cr@reptiles.org> <87but778nq.fsf@interbev.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: qwerty.germany.eu.net In article <87but778nq.fsf@interbev.mindspring.com>, Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> writes: |> On Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:50:24 GMT, jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) said: |> > i would assume that union fs's should not work at all if not defined. |> > but they kinda do. |> |> mount may be loading the appropriate LKM (loadable kernel module) on |> demand. Either way, unionfs is known to be broken at this time. With 2.0R, I used to use unionfs quite a lot. The snag was that the LKM did not work; you had to compile the kernel with options UNION. Even then, some stuff seemed to hang occasionally (I used to mount a writeable directory on top of CDROMs), but simply telling the system to "umount /cdrom" always cleared the error condition, i.e. the umount command failed miserably telling me /cdrom was still active, but the other process didn't hand and chugged along... No, I don't have any idea what was going on or why LKM unionfs didn't work. Bernard