On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 06:51:21PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 06:03:51PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > heard of it for HPUX, and it seems that XEN
> > is somewhat compareable to that, but that didn't
> > answer my question: are they available for Linux
> > or 'just' f
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 06:03:51PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> heard of it for HPUX, and it seems that XEN
> is somewhat compareable to that, but that didn't
> answer my question: are they available for Linux
> or 'just' for HPUX?
http://www.hp.com/products1/unix/operating/manageability/partiti
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 04:24:56AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> ...
>
> That should be part of the patch to enable vserver.
>
> > > BTW, I visited http://www.linux-vserver.org/ and didn't feel
> > > I understood why it's more use
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 04:24:56AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
...
> sure not, but gettimeofday for example, will
> return the current time, and this usually does
> not need an architecture specific interface
glibc
> (for sure it will require an arch specific
> implementation ;)
possible a diff
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 02:00:35AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> ...
> > I agree from a technical point of view, but not from
> > the developer's perspective (who just want's a syscall
> > for whatever arch independant use ...)
>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 02:00:35AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
...
> I agree from a technical point of view, but not from
> the developer's perspective (who just want's a syscall
> for whatever arch independant use ...)
sorry - an "arch independent syscall" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
> > B
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:55:35PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:28:09PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > personally, I believe that the whole syscall number
> > allocation per architecture is broken by design,
>
> No it's definitely not.
since you removed it from the
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:28:09PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> personally, I believe that the whole syscall number
> allocation per architecture is broken by design,
No it's definitely not.
Binary compatibility with other OS's is an arch specific problem.
In our case, any chance of support for
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:04:50PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > vserver folks really do not care whether or not the
> > syscall is reserved on their architecture, as long
> > as it's there, and it will be there anyway, I just
>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> vserver folks really do not care whether or not the
> syscall is reserved on their architecture, as long
> as it's there, and it will be there anyway, I just
> wanted to be polite and correct, so if you 'think'
> we split up the sw
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 08:25:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:16:18PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > I would like to 'officially' reserve a syscall number
> > for parisc(64)/vserver ...
>
> The syscall is the typical multiplexer crap,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:16:18PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> I would like to 'officially' reserve a syscall number
> for parisc(64)/vserver ...
The syscall is the typical multiplexer crap, so an actual submission
wouldn't have any chance. Please fix up your junk beofe t
12 matches
Mail list logo
