On 21/01/12 20:42, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
> wrote:
>> On 21/01/2012 15.08, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> Arm has a different mechanism of getting
>>> _Unwind_GetIP. Therefore we profile arch
>>> specific backtrace file.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
>>> ---
>>
Hello all,
Long story short:
Busybox compiled against glibc does not have 256 loop devices limit.
Confirmed with this message:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-April/072128.html
Busybox compiled against uClibc is somehow still limited to 256 loops. You
can create more with mknod but
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> On 21/01/12 20:42, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO
>> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2012 15.08, Khem Raj wrote:
Arm has a different mechanism of getting
_Unwind_GetIP. Therefore we profile arch
spe
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:23 AM, tom jok wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Long story short:
> Busybox compiled against glibc does not have 256 loop devices limit.
> Confirmed with this message:
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-April/072128.html
> Busybox compiled against uClibc is somehow
Hi,
It does not incorporate the SuSE bcrypt implementation as requested by
"Ed W." because I feel that the implementation is incorrect (it is not really
compatible with the actual bcrypt ($2$ scheme, instead it is $2a$ scheme),
and the OpenBSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD implementations were licensed under t