Re: Bug#110717: Partitioning error, repartitioned, dinstall does not notice new partitioning afterward
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 01:16:37AM -0800, David Kimdon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It appears as though this bug is specific to the reiserfs and bf2.4
> flavor. I just tried to reproduce it with a current idepci disk and
> could not. I can reproduce it with current bf2.4 flavor and I
> reproduced it with reiserfs back in September.
>
> Is the following ioctl what you had in mind pb? It doesn't make the
> problem go away, unfortunate. The ioctl always returns -1 for me so
> maybe I'm doing something wrong.
>
I've got something similar going on in powerpc. I've got all the code
working for choosing and reading archives from a hard disk (just
waiting for 3.0.19 to check it in). There's just one glitch remaining.
To reproduce this glitch, I initialize a partition and install
kernel/modules from hard disk (which uses /instmnt). When it
completes, I verify that /instmnt has been umounted. Then I umount the
target partition, re-initialize it, and re-install the kernel/modules
from hard disk. After it completes the second time, /instmnt won't
umount (says it's busy) -- and nothing short of a reboot will get it
to. umount -f also fails from the second console. I verified using
lsof there are no open files. I suspect it might have something to do
with the failure of del_loop to delete the loop device after it's
been used ('cause I think the creation might take place when we are
chdir to /instmnt). But, why wouldn't it fail the first time then?
I don't think this is a serious problem, since most people wouldn't go
through this sequence and reboot is a small price to pay at this
stage. But I thought it might be somehow related.
--
*------v--------- Installing Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 --------v------*
| <http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/installmanual> |
| debian-imac (potato): <http://debian-imac.sourceforge.net> |
| Chris Tillman tillman@azstarnet.com |
| May the Source be with you |
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Reply to: