On 25.04.2016 18:00, dm-devel-requ...@redhat.com wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:49:50 +0200 From: Hannes Reinecke
> To: dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Upcall
> prioritizer for multipath Message-ID: <571dcc1e.5000...@suse.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
On 26.4.2016 10:47, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
Hi,
Those example udev rules are
On 04/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
Hi,
Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should
On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
Hi,
Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not
to confuse distributors.
Distributors
Quoting Seth Forshee (seth.fors...@canonical.com):
> In a userns mount some on-disk inodes may have ids which do not
> map into s_user_ns, in which case the in-kernel inodes are owned
> by invalid users. The superblock owner should be able to change
> attributes of these inodes but cannot. However
Quoting Seth Forshee (seth.fors...@canonical.com):
> Both of these filesystems already have use cases for mounting the
> same super block from multiple user namespaces. For sysfs this
> happens when using criu for snapshotting a container, where sysfs
> is mounted in the containers network ns but