On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev.
>> If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus,
>> would this mean, systemd becomes mandatory in the initr
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev.
> If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus,
> would this mean, systemd becomes mandatory in the initramfs to setup
> kdbus before udev is run?
_If_ udev drops n
Hi,
something I was wondering regarding kdbus and udev.
If udev wants to drop the netlink transport and instead rely on kdbus,
would this mean, systemd becomes mandatory in the initramfs to setup
kdbus before udev is run?
Will it still be possible in the future to run udev without systemd
in the
> On Mon, 27.07.15 16:35, c...@endlessnow.com (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 27.07.15 01:18, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I suspect that somebody here knows why, but all mounts now fail...
>> well
>> >> all but /.
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone run across this before
On Tuesday 28 of July 2015 03:31:08 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sat, 04.07.15 13:23, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 08:31:42PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01.07.15 12:35, Daniel Tihelka (dtihe...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
>
> Most likely you built your LVM/dm userspace without proper udev
> support, or left support in there that creates device nodes on its
> own.
>
> Nowadays with devtmpfs device nodes are created exclusively by the
> kernel and userspace should never create a single device node. If your
> LVM/DM t
> I have no understanding of Coccinelle. I do not understand what you
> are saying.
The application of a few scripts in the semantic patch language
can occasionally help to improve some software, can't it?
Now I'll try again to present more detailed source code analysis results
according to specif
2015-07-28 19:20 GMT+02:00 Simon McVittie :
> On 28/07/15 17:28, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> > At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported
> > NFSv3, using custom notifications over SunRPC).
> >
> > Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and finally with
> > local-only
On 28/07/15 17:28, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported
> NFSv3, using custom notifications over SunRPC).
>
> Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and finally with
> local-only inotify inside glib/gvfs.
What GLib actually uses is a
On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 06:22 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> В Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:05:37 +
> "Keller, Jacob E" пишет:
>
> > On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 21:53 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > > В Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:29:57 +
> > > "Keller, Jacob E" пишет:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 2
At first look, this seems very similar to FAM (which even supported NFSv3,
using custom notifications over SunRPC).
Later I remember GNOME replaced it with Gamin and finally with local-only
inotify inside glib/gvfs.
It might be useful to revive it, both inotify and fanotify have problems.
But I g
Hi all,
for some time I have been looking at the issue why fsnotify does not work
with network filesystems and FUSE (with a shared backend).
I've found out that changes initiated on the localhost, on the filesystem
are supported by the fs change subsystems on Linux, and events initiated at
the ba
12 matches
Mail list logo
