I have a preliminary version of the new vzpkg utilities ready for testing.
These new tools support creating templates for 32 and 64 bit flavours of
the following:
Centos 4 and 5,
Fedora 7, 8 and 9,
Debian Sarge and Etch,
Ubuntu Feisty, Gutsy and Hardy.
They are extensible and will
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Does presence of /dev/pts/ptmx in single-instance case break userspace ?
>> It changes the permssion rules and subverts any permissions and security
>> labels applied to the current node.
>> If it was there and defaulted to no permission
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ok, to be more specific, I was thinking of following.
>
> Currently, all the requests for a block device go into request queue in
> a linked list and then associated elevator selects the best request for
> dispatch based on various policies as dictated by elevator.
>
> Can we
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Does presence of /dev/pts/ptmx in single-instance case break userspace ?
>
> It changes the permssion rules and subverts any permissions and security
> labels applied to the current node.
>
> If it was there and defaulted to no permission I doubt anything would
> care - ie pres
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 05:41:46PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:07:32PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > >> The objective of the i/o controller is to improve i/o performance
> > >> pre
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 09:00:17PM +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> Hi, fernando,
>
> > > IMHO, optimizing the synchronous path alone would justify the addition
> > > of io_context in bio. There is more to this though.
> > >
> > > As you point out, it would seem that aio and buffered IO would n
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2008-09-05 08:25, Patrick McHardy wrote:
I hope so :) A different possiblity suggest by Pablo some time ago
would be to mark untracked packets in skb->nfctinfo and not
attach a conntrack at all.
>>> Indeed, I remember that :). I left that patch of th
On Friday 2008-09-05 08:25, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> > I hope so :) A different possiblity suggest by Pablo some time ago
>> > would be to mark untracked packets in skb->nfctinfo and not
>> > attach a conntrack at all.
>>
>> Indeed, I remember that :). I left that patch of the table time ago [1]
Mukesh wrote:
> "Write Error: No space left on device".
Search for
ENOSPC
on the (brand new) cpuset(7) man page, such as at:
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/cpusets/download/cpuset.7
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Hi,
I am using a vanilla build of the Linux kernel (2.6.26) where I have
enabled cpusets and cgroups. I was able to successfully create a "test"
cgroup. When I try to add any process to the tasks under "test" cgroup, I
get the error "Write Error: No space left on device".
Any help is appreciated
> Does presence of /dev/pts/ptmx in single-instance case break userspace ?
It changes the permssion rules and subverts any permissions and security
labels applied to the current node.
If it was there and defaulted to no permission I doubt anything would
care - ie presence is not the problem, righ
Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
I think you could avoid this mess by using a struct nf_conntrack
for the untracked conntrack instead of struct nf_conn. It shouldn't
make any difference since its ignored anyways.
>>> Ewww, can I?
>> I hope so :) A different possiblit
Hi, fernando,
> > IMHO, optimizing the synchronous path alone would justify the addition
> > of io_context in bio. There is more to this though.
> >
> > As you point out, it would seem that aio and buffered IO would not
> > benefit from caching the io context in the bio itself, but there are
> >
Hi, fernando,
> > > > > As an aside, when the IO context of a certain IO operation is known
> > > > > (synchronous IO comes to mind) I think it should be cashed in the
> > > > > resulting bio so that we can do without the expensive accesses to
> > > > > bio_cgroup once it enters the block layer.
>
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:54:16PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Make untracked conntrack per-netns. Compare conntracks with relevant
>>> untracked one.
>>>
>>> The following code you'll start laughing at this code:
>>>
>>> if (ct == ct->
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 06:58:38PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> static inline void
>>> -nf_conntrack_event_cache(enum ip_conntrack_events event,
>>> +nf_conntrack_event_cache(struct net *net, enum ip_conntrack_events event,
>>>
16 matches
Mail list logo
