at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz
SUSE Labs, CR
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue 04-09-07 18:48:52, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I imagine
On Fri 31-08-07 12:29:53, Balbir Singh wrote:
Jan Kara wrote:
+}
+ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_QTYPE, dquot-dq_type);
+if (ret)
+goto attr_err_out;
+ret = nla_put_u64(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_EXCESS_ID, dquot-dq_id);
+if (ret
On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Maybe before proceeding further with the discussion I'd like to
understand following: What are these user namespaces supposed to be good
for?
(Please skip to the message end first, as I think you may
On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However I'm still confused about the use of current-user. If that
is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
it gets to be a really trick business, because potentially the uid
On Thu 30-08-07 14:10:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However I'm still confused about the use of current-user. If that
is what we really want and not the user
On Wed 29-08-07 12:00:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
netlink
interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted
On Wed 29-08-07 12:31:52, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect the namespace virtualisation guys would be interested in a new
interface which is sending current-user-uid up to userspace. uids are
per-namespace now. What are the implications? (cc's added
-rc5 still has a wrong test on line
890 in commit.c. Thanks for notification, I'll resend it.
BTW: How have you found this out?
Honza
--
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE CR Labs
it (it still seems to apply
fine). Please apply it. Thanks.
Honza
--
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE CR Labs
We have to check that also the second checkpoint list is non-empty before
dropping the transaction.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara [EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo
