On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:31:28 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't
> > see anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to
> > incur the hit that's always been there.
>
>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
> > anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
> > the hit that's always been there.
>
> Broaden the paravirt patching
Chris Wright wrote:
> Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
> anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
> the hit that's always been there.
Broaden the paravirt patching machinery?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Oct 23 2007 02:13, Chris Wright wrote:
>* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
>> >Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
>> >anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
>> >the hit
* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
> >Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
> >anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
> >the hit that's always been there. I think your Kconfig
On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
>>
>> If it turns out that the above module becomes unmaintained and no
>> longer usable, and no other useful cases show up, we can always
>> garbage collect this code in the future; it's now low-overhead
>> anyway for those who care, due to the KConfig
On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
If it turns out that the above module becomes unmaintained and no
longer usable, and no other useful cases show up, we can always
garbage collect this code in the future; it's now low-overhead
anyway for those who care, due to the KConfig option.
* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
the hit that's always been there. I think your Kconfig option is a
On Oct 23 2007 02:13, Chris Wright wrote:
* Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote:
Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
the hit that's always
Chris Wright wrote:
Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
the hit that's always been there.
Broaden the paravirt patching machinery?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see
anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur
the hit that's always been there.
Broaden the paravirt patching machinery?
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:31:28 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't
see anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to
incur the hit that's always been there.
Broaden
* Arjan van de Ven ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
> James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> > > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected,
> > > >and had examples of their
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:56:52 +1000 (EST)
James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > @@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu
> > .sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop,
> >
> > .register_security =
> >
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> @@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu
> .sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop,
>
> .register_security =selinux_register_security,
> + .unregister_security =
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> > >I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected,
> > >and had examples of their real-world use to step forward and
> > >explain their use, and that
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected,
and had examples of their real-world use to step forward and
explain their use, and that I explicitly
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
@@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu
.sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop,
.register_security =selinux_register_security,
+ .unregister_security =
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:56:52 +1000 (EST)
James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
@@ -4895,6 +4908,7 @@ static struct security_operations selinu
.sem_semop =selinux_sem_semop,
.register_security =
* Arjan van de Ven ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:57:06 +1000 (EST)
James Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I'd like to note that I asked people who were actually affected,
and had examples of their real-world use to step
20 matches
Mail list logo
