[systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Preliminary systemd.conf 2016 Schedule Available!

2016-08-16 Thread Lennart Poettering
Heya! We have published a preliminary version of the systemd.conf 2016 schedule: https://cfp.systemd.io/en/systemdconf_2016/public/schedule/1 There is a small number of white slots in the schedule still, because we're missing confirmation from a small number of presenters. The missing talks

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote: In the meantime, to object to other developers doing work on systemd to test out these changes seems very odd, who are you, or me, to tell someone else what they can or can not do with their project? Interesting philosophical question as to who owns the

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 01:55:34PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 08/16/2016 12:53 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:51:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 12:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > But agreement is

[systemd-devel] systemd-nspawn overlay and rootfs

2016-08-16 Thread Juanjo Presa
Hi, I'm trying to compose a container with several layers and join together with overlay option but seems that is not supported. I want to get something like: systemd-nspawn --overlay=/foo/ubuntu-base:/foo/app-runtime:/foo/app:/ -D /foo/bar --boot Maybe I'm misunderstanding the overlay option.

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 12:53 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:51:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: >On 08/16/2016 12:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > >But agreement is usually the best way to work things out, don't you > >think? Isn't it better than the traditional way a company works (a

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 12:51 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:47:16PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Irrelevant. No, not at all, I'm just really confused as to what systemd changes are required to get wireguard working properly with it? Think of it like native integration with

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:47:16PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 12:31 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25:47PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > > > > On 08/16/2016 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +,

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 12:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: But agreement is usually the best way to work things out, don't you think? Isn't it better than the traditional way a company works (a project manager says "this has to be merged!")? Agreed mutual agreement is the best course of action always but

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:51:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 08/16/2016 12:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > But agreement is usually the best way to work things out, don't you > > think? Isn't it better than the traditional way a company works (a > > project manager says "this has to

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:35:13PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 12:13 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:23:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > Why cant the kernel community figure this out and solve this upstream > > > first > > > since it's

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 12:31 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25:47PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 08/16/2016 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Such as what specifically? Are you pretending you are going to be

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 12:13 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:23:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Why cant the kernel community figure this out and solve this upstream first since it's quite obvious from the threads that Tejun Heo linked to in that pull request that this is a

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25:47PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > > > > On 08/16/2016 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +,

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:23:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 08/16/2016 10:42 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > As long as this new code doesn't break things for users without those > kernel patches, why would you object? Are you having to maintain these > new features for some

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 08/16/2016 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is > > > interested > > > seeing it

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 10:42 AM, Greg KH wrote: As long as this new code doesn't break things for users without those kernel patches, why would you object? Are you having to maintain these new features for some reason? No but I eventually might have to deal with the fallout from such approach. Why

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 10:27 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Tue, 16.08.16 10:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: Yes kdbus is a good example why this should not be done. Why not just have an experimental repository for out of tree, un-merged stuff upstream and those that want to

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is interested seeing it property integrated into systemd. Anywork related to that could not be started *until* he had his

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is interested > seeing it property integrated into systemd. Anywork related to that could not > be started *until* he had his stuff merged in the upstream kernel

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 08/16/2016 09:04 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mon, 15.08.16 10:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Johann, what you are posting here is really not helpful in any > way. > > >

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Tue, 16.08.16 10:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: > Yes kdbus is a good example why this should not be done. > > Why not just have an experimental repository for out of tree, un-merged > stuff upstream and those that want to use/rely/test that stuff can build and > run

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 09:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 15.08.16 16:52, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: The world isn't just black and white, you know. That depends entirely on ones perception of the world does it not? I'm interesting to hear when it is not but such

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Jóhann B . Guðmundsson
On 08/16/2016 09:04 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 15.08.16 10:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: Johann, what you are posting here is really not helpful in any way. It's helpful in that way of letting people know that you have chosen to deviating from upstream

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mon, 15.08.16 10:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: Johann, what you are posting here is really not helpful in any way. Yes, we generally want a clear upstreaming perspective for kernel changes we support. But we have merged support for stuff that wasn't upstream yet before

Re: [systemd-devel] Head ups - upstream first no longer applies to the kernel.

2016-08-16 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Mon, 15.08.16 16:52, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote: > > Due to the lack of consensus in the kernel community, the CPU controller > > support on the unified cgroup hierarchy requires out-of-tree kernel > > patches. > > See cgroup-v2-cpu.txt[3]. > > > >I think