Olaf Hering writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] tools/hotplug: convert
proc-xen.mount to proc-xen.service"):
> On Wed, Nov 08, Wei Liu wrote:
> > But is there really no way to ask nicely to see if systemd would accept
> > a change in behaviour? That is, to make proc-
On Wed, Nov 08, Wei Liu wrote:
> But is there really no way to ask nicely to see if systemd would accept
> a change in behaviour? That is, to make proc-xen.mount (or any attempt
> to mount API fs) a nop when xenfs is added to API file system.
I have considered that as well. If the failing unit is
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:24:14PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > > If not, then out-of-tree packages are going to have compatibility
> > > problems with this change.
> > Only if they use Requires=proc-xen.mount.
>
> Any other objections to this change?
>
>
On Thu, Oct 26, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > If not, then out-of-tree packages are going to have compatibility
> > problems with this change.
> Only if they use Requires=proc-xen.mount.
Any other objections to this change?
How to proceed with this?
Olaf
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 26/10/17 16:25, Olaf Hering wrote:
> > An upcoming change in systemd will mount xenfs right away, along with
> > all other system mounts. This improves the detection of the
> > virtualization environment, which is currently racy. S
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 05:25:36PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> An upcoming change in systemd will mount xenfs right away, along with
> all other system mounts. This improves the detection of the
> virtualization environment, which is currently racy. Some parts of
> systemd rely on the presence of /
On Thu, Oct 26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> I've never really understood why xenfs exists in the first place
> (although I expect the answer is "Because that is how someone did it in
> the past"), and I'm not aware of any other project which needs its own
> custom filesystem driver for device nodes.
P
On 26/10/17 16:59, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
>> Can't all information be obtained from /sys/hypervisor? If not, how
>> hard would it be to make happen?
> Likely not that hard. Not sure why that was not added in the first place.
I've never really understood why xe
On Thu, Oct 26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Can't all information be obtained from /sys/hypervisor? If not, how
> hard would it be to make happen?
Likely not that hard. Not sure why that was not added in the first place.
> What happens to all the software which currently has a dependency on
> proc-x
On 26/10/17 16:25, Olaf Hering wrote:
> An upcoming change in systemd will mount xenfs right away, along with
> all other system mounts. This improves the detection of the
> virtualization environment, which is currently racy. Some parts of
> systemd rely on the presence of /proc/xen/capabilities,
An upcoming change in systemd will mount xenfs right away, along with
all other system mounts. This improves the detection of the
virtualization environment, which is currently racy. Some parts of
systemd rely on the presence of /proc/xen/capabilities, which will only
exist if xenfs is mounted. Sin
11 matches
Mail list logo
