On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl)
wrote:
Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:59:52PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 06:35:58AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 24.04.14 02:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
Supporting less reliable operation modes for something that just needs
to be configured in the kernel seems the wrong approach, especially
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall disabled? Note
that there are two different cases to distuingish here: a file
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:35, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Hi Kay,
it seems that handles are not crucial, and the
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Hi Kay,
it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
works too. Is there something I'm missing?
The name_to_handle API works properly with bind mounts, it's the more
reliable API.
El 20/04/14 10:53, Kay Sievers escribió:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Hi Kay,
it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
works too. Is there something I'm missing?
The real problem here is that kernel
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Hi Kay,
it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
works too. Is there something I'm missing?
The
This has the advantage that we use the same sscanf
pattern as in other places where /proc/self/mountinfo is parsed,
and we avoid bugreports from people who are confused about missing
CONFIG_FHANDLE.
An alternate solution would be to warn when (at runtime) name_to_handle_at
is detected to be
11 matches
Mail list logo
