On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:20:45PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> The function `v9fs_xattrcreate` makes use of the define `XATTR_SIZE_MAX`
> to reject attempts of creating xattrs with an invalid size, which is
> defined in . On glibc-based systems, this header is
> indirectly included via , ,
On 31.07.2017 16:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Sun, 07/30 19:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:23:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Sun, 07/30 19:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > > On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > >> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> >
On 31 July 2017 at 15:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> No objection to adding more BSDs to patchew as long as I can find a few more
> gigabytes RAM to run the VM (BTW I'm also thinking about converting long
> running
> VMs to boot/shutdown on demand, to support more types of guests). But
On Sun, 07/30 19:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
On 30.07.2017 20:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
This is likely to break on BSD, but now
On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> This is likely to break on BSD, but now than patchew has a NetBSD job
>>> you can trigger a build RESENDing
On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> This is likely to break on BSD, but now than patchew has a NetBSD job
>> you can trigger a build RESENDing this patch.
> Thanks for the feedback! Is this
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> >> The function `v9fs_xattrcreate` makes use of the define `XATTR_SIZE_MAX`
> >> to reject attempts of creating xattrs with an invalid size, which
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
The function `v9fs_xattrcreate` makes use of the define `XATTR_SIZE_MAX`
to reject attempts of creating xattrs with an invalid size, which is
defined in . On glibc-based systems, this header is
indirectly included via , ,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> The function `v9fs_xattrcreate` makes use of the define `XATTR_SIZE_MAX`
> to reject attempts of creating xattrs with an invalid size, which is
> defined in . On glibc-based systems, this header is
> indirectly included
The function `v9fs_xattrcreate` makes use of the define `XATTR_SIZE_MAX`
to reject attempts of creating xattrs with an invalid size, which is
defined in . On glibc-based systems, this header is
indirectly included via , ,
, but on other platforms this is not guaranteed due
to not being part of the
13 matches
Mail list logo