On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:58:16PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2019/12/30 01:13, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > Now that `ldomctl console ...' is implemented there is actually no need
> > to print the device any longer, it is an implementation detail that
> > should be hidden just like it is the
On 2019/12/30 01:13, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Now that `ldomctl console ...' is implemented there is actually no need
> to print the device any longer, it is an implementation detail that
> should be hidden just like it is the case with vmctl.
But vmctl does show the device ..?
$ vmctl start open
v
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:11:01PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The way I see it, "ldomctl console" is just there for compatibility
> with vmctl. We don't really need it for sparc64 as the random
> allocation of ttys that vmm(4) suffers from doesn't happen (and there
> are interesting user permis
> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:18:46 +0100
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:04:10PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > No. If you messed this up in a previous commit, please fix it some
> > other way.
> The purpose of this diff is not to fix previously messed up spacing but
> to omi
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:04:10PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> No. If you messed this up in a previous commit, please fix it some
> other way.
The purpose of this diff is not to fix previously messed up spacing but
to omit information that I consider redundant by now since the `console'
availabl
> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:13:56 +0100
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> Now that `ldomctl console ...' is implemented there is actually no need
> to print the device any longer, it is an implementation detail that
> should be hidden just like it is the case with vmctl.
>
> That also makes it fit nicel
