Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 8.12.2016 08:58, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>>
Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
resolved.
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 8.12.2016 08:58, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>>
Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
resolved.
>>>
>>> After getting slowed down by some
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>
>>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>>> resolved.
>>
>> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>
>>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>>> resolved.
>>
>> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
>> your patch in the
On 8.12.2016 08:58, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>
>>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>>> resolved.
>>
>> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now
On 8.12.2016 08:58, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>>
>>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>>> resolved.
>>
>> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>
>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>> resolved.
>
> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
> your patch in the hopes of merging
On 8.12.2016 03:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Nikolay Borisov writes:
>
>> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
>> resolved.
>
> After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
> your patch in the hopes of merging it.
>
> Did you
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
> resolved.
After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
your patch in the hopes of merging it.
Did you happen to see the kbuild test roboot boot
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> Gentle ping, now that rc1 has shipped and Jan's sysctl concern hopefully
> resolved.
After getting slowed down by some fixes I am now taking a hard look at
your patch in the hopes of merging it.
Did you happen to see the kbuild test roboot boot failures and did you
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36:22AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:36:22AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 10/11/2016 10:36 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
>> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>>
>> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
>> user_struct structure. This
Nikolay Borisov writes:
> On 10/11/2016 10:36 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
>> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>>
>> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
>> user_struct structure. This means that in
On Tue 11-10-16 10:36:22, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
> users in
On Tue 11-10-16 10:36:22, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
> users in
On 10/11/2016 10:36 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
> users in
On 10/11/2016 10:36 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
> per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
>
> Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
> user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
> users in
This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
users in unprivileged containers map to the same underlying
real user
This patchset converts inotify to using the newly introduced
per-userns sysctl infrastructure.
Currently the inotify instances/watches are being accounted in the
user_struct structure. This means that in setups where multiple
users in unprivileged containers map to the same underlying
real user
20 matches
Mail list logo