On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl)
> > wrote:
> >> > Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
> >> >
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>> > Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
>> > name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall disabled? Note
>>
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:35, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
> On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > > Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
> > > name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall
On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by
> > name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall disabled? Note
> > that there are two different cases to distuingish here: a file
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 06:35:58AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 24.04.14 02:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>
> > > Supporting less reliable operation modes for something that just needs
> > > to be configured in the kernel seems the wrong approach, especia
On Thu, 24.04.14 02:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > Supporting less reliable operation modes for something that just needs
> > to be configured in the kernel seems the wrong approach, especially
> > when it involves filesystem operations on user data like tmpfiles
>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:59:52PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Kay,
>
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Kay,
>> > it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 03:53:05PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kay,
> > it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
> > works too. Is there something I'm missing?
>
> The name_to_handle API
El 20/04/14 10:53, Kay Sievers escribió:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
Hi Kay,
it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
works too. Is there something I'm missing?
The real problem here is that kernel developers took the q
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hi Kay,
> it seems that handles are not crucial, and the simplified version below
> works too. Is there something I'm missing?
The name_to_handle API works properly with bind mounts, it's the more
reliable API.
It also was in
11 matches
Mail list logo
