Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Fri, 10.10.14 18:48, Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at) wrote:
>
>> Lennart,
>>
>> Am 10.10.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
>> > It's a bit more complex. While UML, qemu, kvm, currently don't, LXC,
>> > systemd-nspawn and libvirt-lxc all do talk directly
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 17.09.14 10:24, Richard Weinberger (richard.weinber...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:31:05PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrot
Jan Synacek writes:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>> On Fri, 10.10.14 18:48, Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at) wrote:
>>
>>> Lennart,
>>>
>>> Am 10.10.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
>>> > It's a bit more complex. While UML, qemu, kvm, currently don't, LXC,
>>> > systemd-nspawn and li
On Fri, 10.10.14 18:48, Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at) wrote:
> Lennart,
>
> Am 10.10.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> > It's a bit more complex. While UML, qemu, kvm, currently don't, LXC,
> > systemd-nspawn and libvirt-lxc all do talk directly to machined. (Note
> > that LXC and
Lennart,
Am 10.10.2014 um 18:44 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> It's a bit more complex. While UML, qemu, kvm, currently don't, LXC,
> systemd-nspawn and libvirt-lxc all do talk directly to machined. (Note
> that LXC and libvirt-lxc are separate codebases, the latter is *not* a
> wrapper around the
On Wed, 17.09.14 10:24, Richard Weinberger (richard.weinber...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:31:05PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with
On Tue, 16.09.14 17:31, Thomas Meyer (tho...@m3y3r.de) wrote:
Heya,
> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
> calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
Well, this depends, how UML positions itself. If it's just a tool that
other management software s
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:24:18AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:31:05PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
>
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:31:05PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
>> calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
> Yes, this sounds usefu
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:31:05PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
> calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
Yes, this sounds useful. After all is just another mechanism of
virtualization, and in this case c
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Meyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
> calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
>
> I think machined gives you a nice overview over all running UML
> instances, also you get the scope uni
Hi,
I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
I think machined gives you a nice overview over all running UML
instances, also you get the scope unit and the control groups with above
registration to machined. anyt
Hi,
I wrote a small patch for user-mode linux to register with machined by
calling "CreateMachine". Is this a good idea to do so?
I think machined gives you a nice overview over all running UML
instances, also you get the scope unit and the control groups with above
registration to machined. anyt
13 matches
Mail list logo
