On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:07:06 +0200,
Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
> > > big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
> > > an error code is
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:07:06 +0200,
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
an error code is correct
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
> > big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
> > an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem
> > defined
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 09:42:20AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
> > big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
> > an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem
> > defined in
On Wed 2015-07-29 12:46:59, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
> encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
> be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
> devices returns ENODEV error.
On Wed 2015-07-29 12:46:59, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
devices returns ENODEV error. The
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem
defined in
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 09:42:20AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no
big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such
an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem
defined in POSIX:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:45:11 +0200,
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> HI Takashi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
> > encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:45:11 +0200,
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
HI Takashi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
be an
HI Takashi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
> encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
> be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
>
Hi,
while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
devices returns ENODEV error. The logind in systemd-210 treats this
error code as fatal,
Hi,
while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
devices returns ENODEV error. The logind in systemd-210 treats this
error code as fatal,
HI Takashi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
while debugging a problem of X and gdm with the old systemd-210, we
encountered a sudden death of systemd-logind, and this turned out to
be an unexpected errno from close(). The close() call for input
devices
14 matches
Mail list logo
