On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:26, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> > >root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> > >daemons which do bad things are bugs.
> >
> > in this cas
On Tuesday, 17 July 2007 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >
> >>> root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> >>>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
daemons which do bad things are bugs.
in this case it would be more like
dd i
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:08PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >root is free to "dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/mem". Root owned
> >daemons which do bad things are bugs.
>
> in this case it would be more like
>
> dd if=/block0 of=/dev/sda1 count=1 bs=4
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
> > would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
> > suspending kernel would need to
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and lo
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:44:07AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> If yoi want to go the kexec route to hibernation, the dumping kernel
> would need to mount the filesystem to write to a file. Therefore the
> suspending kernel would need to sync to disk and lock that file.
If the file is prealloca
Am Dienstag 17 Juli 2007 schrieb Joseph Fannin:
> Why are all these workarounds preferred, instead of proper suspend
> support for swap files?
>
> IOW, what reasons are there to *not* support swap files, other than the
> hit-and-miss Linux suspend support?
If yoi want to go the kexec route to hib
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:35:22AM -0400, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
>
> There is a very simple solution to this obscure problem: (if I
> understand correctly, you want to dual boot Mac OS X and Linux (and
> maybe also Windows?))
>
> use LVM, thus allow
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:48:17AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -070
On Saturday, 14 July 2007 02:45, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:30:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid cor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Fannin) writes:
[snip]
> Intel Macs use GPT partition tables, which support a huge number
> of primary partitions, and so don't support secondary partitions.
> 32bit Windows does not support GPT, so PC-style MBR partition tables
> must also be used. GPT was designed to
On Friday, 13 July 2007 07:42, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
> > > swap in use by the "old" kernel and its proces
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:27:41PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
> >>
> >>the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate ima
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
a
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
>
> the only justification I have heard for why the hibernate image must be
> written to the swap partition is backwards compatibility (i.e., we've
> always done it that way)
>
> if you ar
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joseph Fannin wrote:
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:42:48 -0400
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
swap in use by the "old" kernel
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:06:43PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Plus we need to figure out how to avoid corrupting filesystems and
> > swap in use by the "old" kernel and its processes (hint: a separate
> > "hibernation partition" is a no-go).
19 matches
Mail list logo
