>> You're right - it was technically still mounted (per 'mount') but
> /proc was empty. Ie, 'ls -l /proc' returns an empty directory.
>
> That sounds seriously wrong. What is the exact output of "mount" and
> "cat /proc/mounts" when this happens?
The output of "mount" is as I attached in 'mount.after'. If I try to "cat
/proc/mounts" it fails because mounts doesn't exist. I can try to get you
the exact output tonight.
I'm still trying to get you output from udisks --monitor-detail.
Unfortunately, this it seems to be hard to reproduce this problem outside
of running under the update manager.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> You're right - it was technically still mounted (per 'mount') but
> /proc was empty. Ie, 'ls -l /proc' returns an empty directory.
>
> That sounds seriously wrong. What is the exact output of "mount" and
> "cat /proc/mounts" when this happens?
The output of "mount" is as I attached in 'mount.after'. If I try to "cat
/proc/mounts" it fails because mounts doesn't exist. I can try to get you
the exact output tonight.
I'm still trying to get you output from udisks --monitor-detail.
Unfortunately, this it seems to be hard to reproduce this problem outside
of running under the update manager.