Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:31:53PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that a non-transparent unionmount should go away
> when the mountee has been shut down, too, because unionmount makes
> little sense without the mountee, be a transparent or a
> non-transparent one.
Well,
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:37:50PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:47:53AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:57:33PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > Hm... While this keeps the code surprisingly simple, it is a rather
> > unusual appr
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:19:17PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:08:20AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:50:07PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 03:56:02AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > > > On
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:56:01AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > This is grand. And you can type apt-get install lynx and off you go.
> > I'm not saying it should be installed by default but I am saying
> > that where a known command was not found it should instead do
> > something
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:29:19PM +0100, Ivan Malone wrote:
> This will be a long post. [...]
As you are talking about several rather unrelated things, it would have
been much easier to handle if you had sent several smaller mails
instead...
> I've managed to get Hurd built from source man
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:41:55PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Start the mountee in a lazy fashion.
This title line is not very helpful. The important point is that this
patch adds the code for starting the mountee. Further explanation about
how this happens, would nor
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Please, please, please, let's try to finally get some of these patches
> installed before discussing matters to death.
The real problem is not patches being discussed to death, but rather
patches that have been reviewed still
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:42:27PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> diff --git a/mount.c b/mount.c
> index 45889f8..9d2a1e5 100644
> --- a/mount.c
> +++ b/mount.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>
> #include "mount.h"
> #include "lib.h"
> +#include "ulfs.h"
>
> /* The command line for starting the mo
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 01:00:10AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 05:08:28AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 09:23:23AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > I'm sending in my attempt to compile a unionfs documentation. It
> > > is format
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Would it be possible to hide a node via unionmount?
I don't think it's possible with our current unionfs implementation,
because of the "unusal" way it handles file removal.
AFAIK it's a standard feature on other unio
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:50:18PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> Currently, attempts to handle a ioctl are done in the following order:
>
> * Use server ioctl handler
> * Look up a glibc ioctl handler
> * Translate ioctl into an RPC
Sounds reasonable.
> I'm also considering allowing
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2009 14:37:39 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
> $ ln / chroot/real_root
> $ chroot chroot /bin/bash
> $ settrans -a / mine real_root
Much easier to settrans first:
settrans myroot mine / && chroot myr
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:14:32AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 3. August 2009 07:25:38 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov:
> > My understanding is that a sub-Hurd is something like another
> > instance of Hurd running on top of the same instance of gnumach.
Right.
> > It seems that
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:23:22PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:26:10PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > You are right -- if a node contains more node_ulfs entries than there
> > are registered in ulfs_chain, then something has gone seriously
> > corrupted.
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:23:22PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:26:10PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 08:26:18PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 07:41:08PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14,
Thomas Schwinge, le Sat 15 Aug 2009 12:24:36 +0200, a écrit :
> There are a few programs that depend on SOL_IP being defined (instead of
> IPPROTO_IP). For Linux this is defined (to 0; as is IPPROTO_IP) in
> glibc's sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/bits/in.h, but not in the generic one at
> bits/in.h, whic
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 07:42:30PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:41:55PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Start the mountee in a lazy fashion.
>
> This title line is not very helpful. The important point is that this
> patch adds
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:15:09PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > + mountee_node = netfs_make_node (netfs_root_node->nn);
> > > + if (!mountee_node)
> > > +return ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + /* Set the mountee on the new node.
> > > + Note that the O_READ flag does not actually limit
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:54:21PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:15:09PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > > > + mountee_node = netfs_make_node (netfs_root_node->nn);
> > > > + if (!mountee_node)
> > > > +return ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Set the
* mount.c (start_mountee): Add the mountee's filesystem to the
list of merged filesystems.
* node.c (node_init_root): Take into consideration the fact that
an empty string refers to the mountee root.
* ulfs.c (ulfs_check): Likewise.
(ulfs_register): Don't check whether "" is a valid directory.
---
* mount.c (mountee_control): New variable.
(mountee_notify_port): Likewise.
(start_mountee): Store the control port of the mountee in
the global variable mountee_control.
(mountee_server): New function.
(_mountee_listen_thread_proc): Likewise.
(setup_unionmount): Request to be notified when the mou
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 09:55:26PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:37:50PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:47:53AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> > > Hm... While this keeps the code surprisingly simple, it is a rather
* netfs.c (netfs_attempt_sync): Sync every writable directory
associated with the supplied node.
(netfs_attempt_syncfs): Send file_syncfs to every writable
directory maintained by unionfs.
---
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 08:41:27PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 a
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 08:57:46PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> I know that my reviews are too pedantic at times -- partially on
> purpose, trying to establish some good practices; partially because of
> my annoying perfectionism. But here I didn't just talk about formalities
>
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:48:31PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:31:53PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > I'm inclined to think that a non-transparent unionmount should go away
> > when the mountee has been shut down, too, because unionmount makes
> >
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:30:47AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to hide a node via unionmount?
>
> I don't think it's possible with our current unionfs implementation,
> because o
26 matches
Mail list logo
