From: Jake E. <ja...@ed...> - 2001-05-16 17:22:39
|
I mistakenly ran two uml's using the same root_fs file, realized the mistake immediately and halted each one ... now every time I halt I get: VFS: Busy indoes after umount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. ... I tried to set a breakpoint in the right place to see what inode(s) was causing this, but it seems like it is too late in the halting process for gdb to catch it (i.e. uml has already killed gbb??) ... I'd rather not start over with a new root_fs, but I suppose I could ... any ideas on fixing it? thanks! jake |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2001-05-16 19:39:49
|
ja...@ed... said: > I mistakenly ran two uml's using the same root_fs file, realized the > mistake immediately and halted each one ... now every time I halt I > get: > VFS: Busy indoes after umount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. ... > any ideas on fixing it? Just fsck it on the host: e2fsck root_fs Jeff |
From: Jake E. <ja...@ed...> - 2001-05-17 15:25:55
|
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 03:53:12PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > ja...@ed... said: > > I mistakenly ran two uml's using the same root_fs file, realized the > > mistake immediately and halted each one ... now every time I halt I > > get: > > VFS: Busy indoes after umount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. ... > > > any ideas on fixing it? > > Just fsck it on the host: > e2fsck root_fs That doesn't fix it ... e2fsck says the fs is clean, boot uml, log in to one of the virtual consoles, run halt, and I get the same thing ... I am using the same debian root filesystem that I have been using for ages and now I am starting to believe it has nothing to do with running 2 uml's using the same root_fs as I did that on my desktop and still have the problem on my laptop (using newer uml code) ... hmmm ... I will grab a 'virgin' copy of the root_fs and see what that does ... jake |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2001-05-17 15:52:44
|
ja...@ed... said: > That doesn't fix it ... e2fsck says the fs is clean, I forgot the -f switch to ignore the clean bit: e2fsck -f root_fs Jeff |
From: Jake E. <ja...@ed...> - 2001-05-17 16:09:38
|
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:05:59PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > ja...@ed... said: > > That doesn't fix it ... e2fsck says the fs is clean, > > I forgot the -f switch to ignore the clean bit: > e2fsck -f root_fs nope ... i get: Unmounting local filesystems... done. Power down. nbd: module cleaned up. VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day... even after e2fsck -f ... jake |
From: Jeff D. <jd...@ka...> - 2001-05-17 17:39:44
|
ja...@ed... said: > I am using the same debian root filesystem that I have been using for > ages and now I am starting to believe it has nothing to do with > running 2 uml's using the same root_fs as I did that on my desktop No, it has nothing to do with you running two UMLs on the same root_fs. Other people see it reliably, and I've seen it once or twice. You should still force an fsck of that root_fs though. Jeff |
From: Rodrigo S. de C. <rc...@im...> - 2001-05-17 17:58:07
|
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:52:48PM -0500, Jeff Dike wrote: > ja...@ed... said: > > I am using the same debian root filesystem that I have been using for > > ages and now I am starting to believe it has nothing to do with > > running 2 uml's using the same root_fs as I did that on my desktop > > No, it has nothing to do with you running two UMLs on the same root_fs. Other > people see it reliably, and I've seen it once or twice. > > You should still force an fsck of that root_fs though. I have the same problem here. _Every_ time I halt, even fscking it, I get the "busy inodes" message. []'s -- Rodrigo S. de Castro <rc...@im...> <ro...@bi...> |