Bug 127073 – unionfs 1.1.3 doesn't work with kernel 2.6.16

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Diego Busacca 2006-03-21 04:44:03 UTC]

Before kernel 2.6.16 the i_node locking in VFS was semaphore based.
Now mutex are used.

I've attached a patch that substitute semaphore locking with mutex locking.

Tested on x86 amd amd64, unionfs-1.1.3 only.

[Comment 1 Diego Busacca 2006-03-21 04:46:32 UTC]

Created attachment 82766 [details, diff]
semaphore to mutex patch for unionfs-1.1.3

[Comment 2 Christian Andreetta (RETIRED) 2006-03-21 05:44:54 UTC]

I've post a mail regarding this to the upstream dev mailing list.

[Comment 3 Daniel Drake (RETIRED) 2006-03-25 05:50:21 UTC]

Thanks for the patch. It would be better if you could produce a patch which can be unconditionally applies and works on both 2.6.15 and 2.6.15. For more details, look at the patch in bug #119538


Removing block on bug 126972 as unionfs is not in the stable tree. Nevertheless, this is a bug that should be fixed.

[Comment 4 Christian Andreetta (RETIRED) 2006-04-03 02:08:15 UTC]

I'd like to follow the upstream development: this is the only reason of your patch not being committed to portage tree.
Upstream devs are already informed of your solution, but at now they are trying to release a 1.2.x version compatible with all kernels.
I'm a bit overloaded at now: if a brave sould could modify this patch to the form of the one in comment #3, I could include it in portage tree.

[Comment 5 Norberto Bensa 2006-04-03 04:39:31 UTC]

You meant with:

#if kernel_version > 2.6.15
use mutex
#else
use semaphore
#endif

?

It is not that hard. I'll do it when I get back home in about 10 hours. 

Regards,
Norberto

[Comment 6 Norberto Bensa 2006-04-03 19:55:21 UTC]

Created attachment 83856 [details, diff]
patch for 2.6.16 and below

Patch compiles with 2.6.16 _AND_ 2.6.15. Not tested.

[Comment 7 Diego Busacca 2006-04-04 00:49:11 UTC]

The new patch form Norberto is OK.
Tested with gentoo-sources-2.6.15-r8 and 2.6.16-r1

(sorry for my lack of replies, the buzilla mails was marked as spam and I didn't see them :( )

[Comment 8 Christian Andreetta (RETIRED) 2006-04-04 01:53:46 UTC]

@diegob80: (comment #7) Well, sometimes bugzilla _is_ spam, so your client may be right :-)
@{diegob80,Norberto}: unionfs-1.1.3-r1 is in portage with your patch. Thanks