Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue 04-09-07 18:48:52, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > >
On Tue 04-09-07 18:48:52, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > >
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > > I imagine it so that you have a machine and on it sever
On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > I imagine it so that you have a machine and on it several virtual
> > > > machines which are sharing a
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Maybe before proceeding further with the discussion I'd like to
> > > understand following: What are these user namespaces supposed to be good
> > > for?
> >
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:48:46 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon 03-09-07 10:12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:43:36 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
> >
> > Mutt knows how to send patches inline vs. attachments... :(
> Hmm,
On Mon 03-09-07 10:12:34, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:43:36 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
>
> Mutt knows how to send patches inline vs. attachments... :(
Hmm, I thought Andrew either does not mind or prefers attachments. If
it isn't the case, I
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:43:36 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Mutt knows how to send patches inline vs. attachments... :(
Anyway, on to the patch. Thanks for adding the new doc file.
+This command is used to send a notification about any of the above mentioned
+eve
On Tue 28-08-07 21:51:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +static void send_warning(const struct dquot *dquot, const char warntype)
> > +{
> > + static unsigned long seq;
> > + struct sk_buff *skb;
> > + void *msg_head;
> >
On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Maybe before proceeding further with the discussion I'd like to
> > understand following: What are these user namespaces supposed to be good
> > for?
>
> (Please skip to the message end first, as I think
On Fri 31-08-07 12:29:53, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> +}
> +ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_QTYPE, dquot->dq_type);
> +if (ret)
> +goto attr_err_out;
> +ret = nla_put_u64(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_EXCESS_ID, dquot->dq_id);
Jan Kara wrote:
+ }
+ ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_QTYPE, dquot->dq_type);
+ if (ret)
+ goto attr_err_out;
+ ret = nla_put_u64(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_EXCESS_ID, dquot->dq_id);
+ if (ret)
+ goto attr_err_out;
+ ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOT
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu 30-08-07 14:10:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->us
On Thu 30-08-07 14:10:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> > > >> is what we really want and
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> > namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> > think we should pass some universal identifier rather tha
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> > >> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
> > >> it gets to
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> > namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> > think we should pass some universal identifier rather tha
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> think we should pass some universal identifier rather than try to find out
> who is listening etc. I think such
On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> >> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
> >> it gets to be a really trick business, because potentially
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:06:43 MDT, Eric W. Biederman said:
> So we have to figure out how to do the hard thing which is look at
> who opened our netlink broadcast see if they are in the same user
> namespace as current->user. Which is a pain and we don't currently
> have the infrastructure for.
P
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
>> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
>> it gets to be a really trick business, because potentially the uid
>> we want to deliver varies depending on who o
On Wed 29-08-07 12:31:52, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I suspect the namespace virtualisation guys would be interested in a new
> >> interface which is sending current->user->uid up to userspace. uids are
> >> per-namespace now. What are the implications
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suspect the namespace virtualisation guys would be interested in a new
>> interface which is sending current->user->uid up to userspace. uids are
>> per-namespace now. What are the implications? (cc's added)
> I know there's something going on in thi
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:26:47 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 28-08-07 21:13:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> > > netlink
> >
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
>> netlink
>> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
>> LKML some time ago
On Wed 29-08-07 12:00:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> >> netlink
> >> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've alrea
On Tue 28-08-07 21:13:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> > netlink
> > interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already pos
On Tue 28-08-07 21:51:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +static void send_warning(const struct dquot *dquot, const char warntype)
> > +{
> > + static unsigned long seq;
> > + struct sk_buff *skb;
> > + void *msg_head;
> >
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via netlink
>> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
>> LKM
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:13:35 -0700
> This is it. Normally netlink payloads are represented as a struct. How
> come this one is built-by-hand?
He is using attributes, which is perfect and arbitrarily
extensible with zero backwards compatability concerns
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static void send_warning(const struct dquot *dquot, const char warntype)
> +{
> + static unsigned long seq;
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + void *msg_head;
> + int ret;
> +
> + skb = genlmsg_new(QUOTA_NL_MSG
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> netlink
> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
> LKML some time ago and there were no objections,
Hello,
I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via netlink
interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
LKML some time ago and there were no objections, so I guess it's fine to put
it to -mm. Andrew, would you be so kind? Thanks.
Usersp
33 matches
Mail list logo
