Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 07:42:20PM +0800, Da Zheng wrote:
> The third patch removes one of gcc's warnings.
>
> Zheng Da
>
>
> 2009-07-20 Zheng Da
>
> rpctrace.c (print_contents): Put the if statement in braces.
>
> diff --git a/utils/rpctrace.c b/utils/rpctrace.c
> index 148b0a4
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:56:57PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> diff --git a/mount.c b/mount.c
> index 7045423..4d12cd6 100644
> --- a/mount.c
> +++ b/mount.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,10 @@ mach_port_t mountee_port;
>
> int mountee_started = 0;
>
> +/* Shows the mode in which the current instance
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 07:40:32PM +0800, Da Zheng wrote:
> 2009-07-20 Zheng Da
>
> fix bug #3939
>
> * rpctrace.c (traced_task): Relocate.
> (wrap_all_threads): New function.
> (wrap_new_thread): Likewise.
> (trace_and_forward): Wrap all thread ports.
>
> diff -
Hi,
First of all, when submitting a patch series, each individual message
should by named after the commit, i.e. the first line of the commit
message. git format-patch should in fact do that automatically -- though
I must admit that I have trouble using it properly myself :-)
The name of the patc
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:54:59PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Another topic for discussion was whether a non-transparent unionmount
> should shut down the mountee on going away.
Actually, what I was discussing is whether non-transparent unionmount
should go away when the mountee goes away
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:57:33PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> >From ba1a38092c3b79c5c4668c159a7a1640c6d94c51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sergiu Ivanov
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:41:41 +
> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Go away when the mountee has been shut down.
>
> * mount.c (mountee_c
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #6851 (project hurd):
The only user of packet_header that I can see is NPF. It requires more data
copy in order to remove the packet_header before delivering the packet to the
user space, I guess. but I don't understand the implementation of NPF.
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #6851 (project hurd):
> The packet delivered from gnumach should have the packet header. NPF
returns the packet_header and pfinet always assumes that the packet from
gnumach has the packet_header.
OK, I understand that, and it is fine, but is there a specific reason t
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #6851 (project hurd):
The packet delivered from gnumach should have the packet header. NPF returns
the packet_header and pfinet always assumes that the packet from gnumach has
the packet_header.
For your first question, the return value of net_do_filter is boolean, i.
