On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:34:14AM +0300, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.
> >>
> >
> >hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the
> >IPC names
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.
hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the
IPC namespace then, not that I think it is broken
(well, maybe it is, we do not know yet)
You
On Saturday 09 December 2006 09:35, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
> > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Herber
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 12:27:34PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 04:50:02AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >> But, ok, it is not the real point t
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 04:50:02AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho
> > >> and waste our time instead of doing things.
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho
>> >> and waste our time instead of doing things.
>
>> > well, IMHO bette
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >> But, ok, it is no
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:50:02 +0100
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho
> > >> and waste our time instead of
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:57:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho
> >> and waste our time instead of doing things.
> > well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement
> > somethi
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But, ok, it is not the real point to argue so much imho and waste our
>> time instead of doing things.
>
> well, IMHO better talk (and think) first, then implement
> something ... not the other way round, and then start
> fixing up the mess ...
Well w
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:54:16PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>>If there is a better and less intrusive while still being obvious
> >>>method I am all for it. I do not like the OpenVZ thing of doing the
> >>>lookup once and then stashing the value in current and the special
> >>>casing the e
>>>If there is a better and less intrusive while still being obvious
>>>method I am all for it. I do not like the OpenVZ thing of doing the
>>>lookup once and then stashing the value in current and the special
>>>casing the exceptions.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> I like it when things are obvious and not im
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 05:38:16PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> Brian Haley wrote:
> >>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I think for cases across network socket namespaces it should
> be a matter for the rules, to decide if the connection s
Vlad Yasevich wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Brian Haley wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think for cases across network socket namespaces it should
be a matter for the rules, to decide if the connection should
happen and what error code to return if the connection does not
happen.
There is a
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Brian Haley wrote:
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> I think for cases across network socket namespaces it should
>>> be a matter for the rules, to decide if the connection should
>>> happen and what error code to return if the connection does not
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> There is
Brian Haley wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think for cases across network socket namespaces it should
be a matter for the rules, to decide if the connection should
happen and what error code to return if the connection does not
happen.
There is a potential in this to have an ambiguous case w
16 matches
Mail list logo
