Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 21:26:18 +0200, a écrit :
> I even offered to write down things in a (for me and many other
> people) clearer way, but that does not seem to be of interest.
What makes you believe that?
Samuel
Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 21:33:43 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 18:16 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 17:53:19 +0200, a écrit :
> > > What are the powerful features compared to a monolithic kernel.
> >
> > Using your (as a user) own pflocal
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 18:16 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 17:53:19 +0200, a écrit :
> >
> > What are the powerful features compared to a monolithic kernel.
>
> Using your (as a user) own pflocal instead of the system-provided one,
> using gdb/valgrind on it,
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 20:51 +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:16:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> OK, I wanted to keep all this on IRC to avoid creating public archives
> humiliating you, but you don't give us much choice, and there is in fact
> already many archived occ
Hi,
I was investigating why fdopendir() would succeed returning a non-null
DIR* for a valid fd of an open file (while it should fail with ENOTDIR).
So far I traced the steps that happen:
- in glibc, __fdopendir calls __file_name_lookup_under with the fd port,
"/" as file name and O_DIRECTORY a
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 06:16:46PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Implementing the whole function setsockopt in eglibc would simplify a
> > lot.
>
> But it can not work: it's pflocal which has to change the option for the
> socket, since that's where the AF_UNIX sockets are actually IMPLEMENTED
Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 17:53:19 +0200, a écrit :
> > What is puzzling exactly? That said, you don't need to understand that
> > part.
>
> I want to know what's happening (not necessarilty understand every
> detail).
Then I can only say that I don't even actually know. And that's just
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 13:04 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 11:10:36 +0200, a écrit :
> > Q1: Where to find that the second code is used when building eglibc:
> > Is it the presence of the second that makes this defining that
> > function?
>
> Yes. The easiest w
Svante Signell, le Sun 16 Sep 2012 11:10:36 +0200, a écrit :
> Q1: Where to find that the second code is uesed when building eglibc:
> Is the the presence of the second that makes this defining that
> function?
Yes. The easiest way to know that is to just grep through the build
logs. The precise
Hi,
As a follow up on the latest IRC discussion, and after reading the
recent rpc.mdwn, I still have some questions.
Let's take a look at the function setsocketopt.
Start with glibc: locate setsockopt.c results in two hits.
eglibc-2.13/socket/setsockopt.c
eglibc-2.13/sysdeps/mach/hurd/setsockopt
10 matches
Mail list logo
