Re: symlink_prefix

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hank Leininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2001-06-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Suppose I have devices /dev/a, /dev/b, /dev/c that contain the >> /, /usr and /usr/spool filesystems for FOO OS. Now >> mount /dev/a /mnt -o symlink_prefix=/mn

Re: Problem with "su -" and kernels 2.4.3-ac11 and higher

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Did you try nesting more than one "su -"? The first one after a boot >> > works for me - every other one fails. >> >> Same here: the first "su -" works OK, but a second nested one hangs: > > It appears to be a bug

Re: IP Acounting Idea for 2.5

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > No he isnt confused, you are trying to dictate policy. >> >> What then *is* the policy? > > The policy is not to have policy. It works as well in kernel design as politics. > > Alan > Since my job is in fact main

Re: Another rsync over ssh hang (repeatable, with 2.4.1 on both ends)

Notice also that by default ssh opens stdin/stdout blocking, and can relatively easily deadlock if the pipes it talks over really want to do a write before a read or the other way round. You can try compile the following file, put it in the same directory as ssh, and then run rsync over this ins

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve VanDevender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ton Hospel writes: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I am afraid I have missed most earlier messages in this thread. > &

Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I am afraid I have missed most earlier messages in this thread. > However, let me remark that the problem of assigning a > file descriptor is the one that is usually described by > "priority queue". The version of Peter van Emd

Re: PROBLEM: multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ton Hospel wrote: > >> It should still need a special flag or something, since it's >> impossible for userspace to check this atomically. > > To c

Re: PROBLEM: multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> 1. multiple mount of devices possible 2.4.0-test1 - 2.4.0-test13-pre4 >> >> 2. its still possible to mount devices several times. >>IMHO it shouldnt be poss