stroy_with_snapshots()
snapshot_destroy_all()
and 4 others at the end (that will cause problems in case of downgrades
without ABI versioning).
The soname between 1.0 and 1.1 has not changed as far as I can see.
Does this mean that LXC ABI is unreliable and can't be trusted?
--
Lukasz Pawelczyk
Samsung R&a
On 7 Mar 2014, at 20:24, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 07.03.14 19:45, Lukasz Pawelczyk (hav...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Problem:
>> Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
>> device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an ap
On 7 Mar 2014, at 20:09, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:46:44PM +0100, Lukasz Pawelczyk wrote:
>> Problem:
>> Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
>> device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
>
Problem:
Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
*something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
without a notific
Problem:
Has anyone thought about a mechanism to limit/remove an access to a
device during an application runtime? Meaning we have an application
that has an open file descriptor to some /dev/node and depending on
*something* it gains or looses the access to it gracefully (with or
without a notific
