On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:56:57AM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Kingsley Cheung writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:02:54PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I'm using relayfs to relay data from a kernel module to user space
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:56:57AM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Kingsley Cheung writes:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:02:54PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm using relayfs to relay data from a kernel module to user space on
a SuSE 2.6.5 kernel. I'm not absolutely sure what
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:02:54PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm using relayfs to relay data from a kernel module to user space on
> a SuSE 2.6.5 kernel. I'm not absolutely sure what version of relayfs
> has been back ported to it.
Hi Tom,
Could you please have a look at the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:02:54PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm using relayfs to relay data from a kernel module to user space on
a SuSE 2.6.5 kernel. I'm not absolutely sure what version of relayfs
has been back ported to it.
Hi Tom,
Could you please have a look at the
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:11:39PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Kingsley Cheung writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:29:12AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > >
> > > > Now I understand that
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:11:39PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Kingsley Cheung writes:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:29:12AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now I understand that this is not the latest release of relayfs (there
are the redux patches, which
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:29:12AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > Now I understand that this is not the latest release of relayfs (there
> > are the redux patches, which I have yet to try). Nonetheless I'd like
> > to know whether this behaviour is deliberate.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:29:12AM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now I understand that this is not the latest release of relayfs (there
are the redux patches, which I have yet to try). Nonetheless I'd like
to know whether this behaviour is deliberate. Is it?
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 10:42:27PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> Kingsley Cheung writes:
> >
> > To solve the problem I applied a patch similar to the one you posted
> > back in July and it fixed the problem. Could we consider putting this
> > patch into relayfs? It
Hi Tom,
I've been stress testing a module that uses relayfs on a custom built
2.6 kernel with relayfs patches in it. This test simply loaded and
unloaded the module while a script loaded the system with forks of
'ls' in the background. It was conducted on a dual 3.00GHz Xeon box
(I couldn't
Hi Tom,
I've been stress testing a module that uses relayfs on a custom built
2.6 kernel with relayfs patches in it. This test simply loaded and
unloaded the module while a script loaded the system with forks of
'ls' in the background. It was conducted on a dual 3.00GHz Xeon box
(I couldn't
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 10:42:27PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Kingsley Cheung writes:
To solve the problem I applied a patch similar to the one you posted
back in July and it fixed the problem. Could we consider putting this
patch into relayfs? Its similar to the one posted in July
12 matches
Mail list logo
