On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:30:27AM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:27:20PM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:07:43PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > $ cat /sys/fs/selinux/avc/cache_stats
> > lookups hits misses allocations reclaims frees
> > 18938916 189
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:27:20PM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:07:43PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
>
> $ cat /sys/fs/selinux/avc/cache_stats
> lookups hits misses allocations reclaims frees
> 18938916 18921707 17209 17209 17328 22215
> 38164283 38146514 17769 17769 16800 1
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:07:43PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:41:58PM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > I can't speak for Shane but wouldn't spend too much time looking at the
> > current v2 patch: it's the result of a pretty ugly compromise suggested
> > on linux-scsi.
>
>
On Sun, 2015-02-08 at 10:45 +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:27:05PM -0500, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> > Hello
> > Its not going to be tens of thousands of devices. That count was an
> > aggregate based on 1000's of servers.
> > In reality its unlikely to ever be more than 100 tape
> On 8.2.2015, at 4.45, Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:27:05PM -0500, Laurence Oberman wrote:
>> Hello
>> Its not going to be tens of thousands of devices. That count was an
>> aggregate based on 1000's of servers.
>> In reality its unlikely to ever be more than 100 tapes drives p
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:27:05PM -0500, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> Hello
> Its not going to be tens of thousands of devices. That count was an
> aggregate based on 1000's of servers.
> In reality its unlikely to ever be more than 100 tapes drives per
> individual Linux kernel instance.
> Therefore
Hello
Its not going to be tens of thousands of devices. That count was an
aggregate based on 1000's of servers.
In reality its unlikely to ever be more than 100 tapes drives per
individual Linux kernel instance.
Therefore sysfs will be the valid way to do this and make the data
available to user sp
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:41:58PM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:59:16AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:20:53AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> > > The current patch that implements tape statistics is here:
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-sc
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:59:16AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:20:53AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> > The current patch that implements tape statistics is here:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=142112067313723&w=2
>
> Aside from the "do we want to do this all in
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 09:13:55AM +, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > The sysfs documentation says that files should contain one item per
> > file (with some small exceptions):
> >
> > > "Attributes should be ASCII text files, preferably with only one value
> > > per file. It is noted that it may no
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:20:53AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> Hello linux-api'ers
>
> There has been some ongoing discussion about the best way to implement tape
> statistics. The original method suggested a long time ago used a single file
> in sysfs similar to block statistics in sysfs.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:20:53AM +, Seymour, Shane M wrote:
> There has been some ongoing discussion about the best way to implement
> tape statistics. The original method suggested a long time ago used a
> single file in sysfs similar to block statistics in sysfs. That lead to
> an impass ab
12 matches
Mail list logo
