systemd-journald check the cgroup id to support rate limit option for
every messages. so journald should be available to access cgroup node in
each process send messages to journald.
In system using SMACK, cgroup node in proc is assigned execute label
as each process's execute label.
so if journald
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:44 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 11:47 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 14:00 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 26.08.14 12:17, Tanu Kaskinen (tan
(I will happy there is already similar method already exist.)
systemd already has similar functionality "systemd-run" but that is only
for scope or service unit. I think that is useful run a service without
unit file on permanent storage.
As a similar method, is it possible to generate or configu
Hi, I'm looking at creating a runtime/app thing for Gnome in the style
of:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html
However, I noticed that some core dependencies like mesa uses libudev.
And in fact, needs user-set additional info not in sysfs. In particular,
it r
On Tuesday 09 September 2014 at 01:40:51, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> ---
> The patch by Umut did miss at least hybrid-sleep -- it involves hibernation
> as well (hybrid sleep is a hibernation followed by S3 rather than S4
> powerdown).
>
> Also, it messed up indentation a bit (Makefile.am s
Chris Morgan wrote on 11/09/14 02:32:
>
> On Sep 10, 2014 5:46 PM, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> mailto:zbys...@in.waw.pl>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Chris Morgan wrote:
>> > >> >> Specifically, running `systemd --user` directly is not supported
>> > >> >> anymore. T
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Chris Morgan wrote on 11/09/14 02:32:
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2014 5:46 PM, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
>> mailto:zbys...@in.waw.pl>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Chris Morgan wrote:
>>> > >> >> Specifically, running `s
This extends the udev parser to support OP_REMOVE (-=) and adds support
for TAG-= to remove previously set tags. We don't fail if the tag didn't
exist.
This is pretty handy if we ship default rules for seat-assignments and
users want to exclude specific devices from that. They can easily add
rules
Hi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:44 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 11:47 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 14:00 +0200, Lennart P
2014-09-11 13:28 GMT+02:00 David Herrmann :
> This patch is untested! Comments welcome.
Should probably be documented in man udev(7) as well.
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
___
Hi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2014-09-11 13:28 GMT+02:00 David Herrmann :
>> This patch is untested! Comments welcome.
>
> Should probably be documented in man udev(7) as well.
Indeed, now fixed.
Thanks
David
___
systemd-d
Hi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:28 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> This extends the udev parser to support OP_REMOVE (-=) and adds support
> for TAG-= to remove previously set tags. We don't fail if the tag didn't
> exist.
>
> This is pretty handy if we ship default rules for seat-assignments and
> user
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> m->kdbus could be freed before it is released. Changing the
> order fixes the issue.
>
> Found with Coverity. Fixes: CID#1237798
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe De Swert
Few notes:
- no punctuation characters in commit-head
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> In case set_consume goes wrong, the pattern name has already been
> freed. So we do not try to print it in the logs, assuming the pattern
> addition print will be printed just before the failure anyway. Found
> with cover
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> When num is < 0 we jump to the error handling. However at that time
> r is not set yet by keyboard_fill so we most likely get a nonsensical
> error. However the num check is not needed as the xkb_state_key_get_syms
> will
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> After a section of memory is succesfully allocated, some of the following
> actions can still fail due to lack of memory. In this case -ENOMEM is
> returned without actually freeing the already mapped memory.
> Found with
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> Actually unref the buscreds when we are not going to return a
> pointer to them. As when bus_creds_add_more fails we immediately
> return the error code otherwise and leak the new buscreds.
> Found with coverity. Fixes: C
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> In test_read_one_char the filehandle does not get its fclose
> at the end of the function, thus we are leaking fd's.
>
> Found with Coverity. Fixes: CID#1237749
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe De Swert
> ---
> src/test/test-
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> Found with Coverity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe De Swert
Looks good, applied!
Thanks
David
> ---
> src/activate/activate.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/activate/activat
Hi
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:14 PM, wrote:
> From: Philippe De Swert
>
> Found with Coverity. Fixes: CID#996435
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe De Swert
> ---
> src/journal/journal-send.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/journal/journal-send.c b/src/jou
Hi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:45 AM, WaLyong Cho wrote:
> (I will happy there is already similar method already exist.)
>
> systemd already has similar functionality "systemd-run" but that is only
> for scope or service unit. I think that is useful run a service without
> unit file on permanent s
Dale R. Worley wrote on 10/09/14 20:56:
>> From: Mantas Mikulėnas
>
>>> What I was thinking of is, what is the program that reads (directly or
>>> indirectly) the Store.mount file and from that decides exactly how to
>>> call mount(8), and when to call it?
>>
>> It's systemd itself (pid 1).
>>
>>
> From: Colin Guthrie
> I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
> framework program mount(8)?
>
> It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
> and then calling out to the appropriate, filesystem specific mount
> program (e.g. mount.nfs
Hallo,
On 11 September 2014 19:41, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > From: Colin Guthrie
> > I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
> > framework program mount(8)?
> >
> > It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
> > and then calling out to
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11.08.14 18:39, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@suse.com) wrote:
>>
>>> > This looks really wrong. We shouldn't permit worker processes to be
>>> > blocked indefinitely w
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11.08.14 18:39, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@suse.com) wrote:
>>>
> This looks really wrong. We should
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
>>> More than two years
>>> have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
>>> commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe its was a design
>>> regression?
>>
>> I don't think so. udev should not allow its w
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
>>> wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:39, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> wrote:
More than two years
have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe its was a design
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:50:19PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> and added a warning
> >> which is triggered after a third of the timeout.
> >
> > This is great! What commit merged this?I just looked at the latest
> > commits and coul
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> How about simply introducing a new flag to finit_module() to indicate
>> that the caller does not care about asynchronicity. We could then pass
>> this from udev, but existing scr
31 matches
Mail list logo
