Re: misc/50166

2015-09-23 Thread Antti Kantee
On 23/09/15 21:25, Robert Millan wrote: I'm also happy to apply a patch where MAXPATHLEN/PATH_MAX/MAXHOSTNAMELEN is removed from the rump kernel userspace code, if you (or someone else) want to send one in another PR. I think that would be nice having, but unfortunately I lack the spare time at

Re: Sound translator / PCI device handling

2015-09-23 Thread Olaf Buddenhagen
Hi, On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 01:24:17PM +, Antti Kantee wrote: > IMO the right way to do device drivers in a hosted environment is to > have one entity which decides which servers see which devices and just > let the servers attach to all devices they see. >From what I gathered from Robert's

Re: USB Mass Storage with rump

2015-09-23 Thread Olaf Buddenhagen
Hi, On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:59:39AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > It'd probably be easy to make ext2fs open a device node, just like we > made pfinet do it. As I already mentioned on IRC, I don't think we should emulate Mach device nodes at all here. Rather, the USB mass storage server(s) w

Re: Sound translator

2015-09-23 Thread Olaf Buddenhagen
Hi, On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:52:01AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > El 19/09/15 a les 01:06, Olaf Buddenhagen ha escrit: > >Is there any actual logic that could be split out into the audio and > >mixer translators? [...] > That depends on the sound API you want to provide to applications. > > R

Re: USB Mass Storage with rump

2015-09-23 Thread Olaf Buddenhagen
Hi, On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:52:13AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Since you most likely want to provide multiplexing, authorisation, > etc, to any application who wants to access USB, I wouldn't recommend > to lump USB mass storage and *HCI in the same Rump instance. Quite frankly, I wouldn't

Re: USB Mass Storage with rump

2015-09-23 Thread Olaf Buddenhagen
Hi, On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:57:03PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > single Rump instance inside a single translator which exposes all of > /dev in Rump namespace somewhere under host /dev hierarchy (e.g. > /dev/rump/*). This is certainly tempting, but also dangerous -- once a somewhat working s

Re: GSoC report: Physical memory management

2015-09-23 Thread Samuel Thibault
Nice work :) Samuel

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 23:24:16 +0200, a écrit : > You are a DD, please raise this question on debian-devel. I'm just > nobody :( One doesn't have to be a DD to raise an issue on debian-devel. People on debian-devel don't care who you are, but what topic you bring there. Of course, if

Re: misc/50166

2015-09-23 Thread Robert Millan
El 21/09/15 a les 23:53, Antti Kantee ha escrit: On 21/09/15 20:37, Robert Millan wrote: The result is much smaller than I expected. In fact, other than make (because of the bootstrap issue) and some Rump components, all remaining MAXPATHLEN/etc issues are handled by nbtool_config.h. Please con

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Svante Signell
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 20:09 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:07:56 +0200, a écrit : > > Seems like dh does this by default now, see debian/rules. From the > > build log > > debian/rules build > > make: 'build' is up to date. > > fakeroot debian/rules binary >

GSoC report: Physical memory management

2015-09-23 Thread Justus Winter
Hello :) this is my report on my GSoC project, "Physical memory management". Tldr: There are some remaining issues to fix, but here is a flashy screenshot of a patched kernel not quite booting Debian/Hurd: GNU Mach 1.5 biosmem: physical memory map: biosmem: 00:09fc00,

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 20:07:56 +0200, a écrit : > Seems like dh does this by default now, see debian/rules. From the > build log > debian/rules build > make: 'build' is up to date. > fakeroot debian/rules binary > dh binary --with autoreconf > ... > dh_auto_test > make -j1 check T

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Svante Signell
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 19:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:45:13 +0200, a écrit : > > This test fails with fakeroot-hurd on Hurd due to that /non > > -existant is > > writable for faked nodes according to: > > No. Check what happens in the testcase again. I

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Samuel Thibault
Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:45:13 +0200, a écrit : > This test fails with fakeroot-hurd on Hurd due to that /non-existant is > writable for faked nodes according to: No. Check what happens in the testcase again. It fails due to / being announced as writable by fakeroot (see the recursi

fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

2015-09-23 Thread Svante Signell
Hi, The attached test program is extracted from one of p11-kit tests (the only failing test) in trust/test_token.c: test_not_writable (): token = p11_token_new (333, "/non-existant", "Label"); main(): p11_test (test_not_writable, "/token/not-writable"); This test fails with fakeroot-hurd on Hurd