On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen tero.ropo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
-if (y x)
+if (x y)
snip
I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
On 10/10/13 12:38, Carlos Silva wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen tero.ropo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
-if (y x)
+if (x y)
snip
I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
No, I believe that was the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
No, I believe that was the point of the patch. The two tests were the
same, first testing (x y), and then (y x). Now it then properly
tests for (x y)
Totally didn't read the context of the code, just the changes and
On Monday 2013-10-07 14:25, Karel Zak wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Tom Gundersen at 10/09/13 13:45 did gyre and gimble:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Jan Engelhardt jeng...@inai.de wrote:
On Tuesday 2013-09-10 13:52, Dave
Hi List,
i was debugging a problem in my own program which sometimes received
'Address already in use' during creation of the netlink socket. It
turned out
that udevd has the same bug. What actually happens is that udevd opens
the netlink socket, and forks afterwards. that doesn't sound bad at
On Thu, 10.10.13 02:18, Mika Eloranta (m...@ohmu.fi) wrote:
Mika,
so before we add properties for these settings we need to make sure they
actually have a future in the kernel and are attributes that are going
to stay supported.
For example MemorySoftLimit is something we supported previously,
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:03:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
For example MemorySoftLimit is something we supported previously, but
which I recently removed because Tejun Heo (the kernel cgroup
maintainer, added to CC) suggested that the attribute wouldn't continue
to exist on
Hi,
Thanks guys for the feedback. I'm interested in using these controls
in dense environments (read: overcommitted memory), where striking
a good balance requires individual tuning of these settings.
I'm actually also eyeballing swappiness, pressure_level notifications
and oom_control (each
On Tue, 08.10.13 02:07, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote:
I've attached the initial implementation -- not yet ready to merge --
for an event-oriented socket activation bridge. It performs well under
load. I haven't tied up all potential leaks yet, but the normal
execution paths
On Tue, 08.10.13 13:12, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:07:27AM -0700, David Strauss wrote:
I've attached the initial implementation -- not yet ready to merge --
for an event-oriented socket activation bridge. It performs well under
load.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:08:26PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 08.10.13 13:12, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:07:27AM -0700, David Strauss wrote:
I've attached the initial implementation -- not yet ready to merge --
for
(cc'ing Johannes and quoting the whole body for context)
Hey, guys.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:28:16AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:03:20PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
For example MemorySoftLimit is something we supported previously, but
which I recently
On Thu, 10.10.13 17:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:08:26PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 08.10.13 13:12, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl)
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:07:27AM -0700, David
On Thu, 10.10.13 08:14, Tero Roponen (tero.ropo...@gmail.com) wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
Thanks!
Applied!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
On Sun, 06.10.13 21:11, Brandon Philips (bran...@ifup.co) wrote:
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
So, yeah, if you respond to each UnitNew signal you get with a property
Get/GetAll call, then this will result in endless ping pong, which is
On Tue, 08.10.13 22:29, Schaufler, Casey (casey.schauf...@intel.com) wrote:
On Mon, 07.10.13 10:30, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h@intel.com) wrote:
Hi,
the patches look OK. I dont' have a system with smack support at
hand, but I tested them on Fedora, and didn't notice any
-Original Message-
From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:51 AM
To: Schaufler, Casey
Cc: Kok, Auke-jan H; Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek; systemd-devel
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Run with a custom SMACK domain
(label).
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
One thing which we can't make work currently, is having the target
service managed by systemd, but running with PrivateNetwork=yes. In
this case, the bridge process must be inside of the target service
and
I was actually planning to rewrite on top of libuv today, but I'm
happy to port to the new, native event library.
Is there any best-practice for using it with multiple threads?
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:12:26PM -0700, David Strauss wrote:
I was actually planning to rewrite on top of libuv today, but I'm
happy to port to the new, native event library.
Is there any best-practice for using it with multiple threads?
Best-practice is using just one thread :)
Zbyszek
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Best-practice is using just one thread :)
That depends on whether you need to scale up to multiple cores.
--
David Strauss
| da...@davidstrauss.net
| +1 512 577 5827 [mobile]
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that some places use /run otherwise, which isn't going to work.
---
src/core/main.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/core/main.c b/src/core/main.c
index fe291f8..36543c6 100644
Didn't we recently drop this option?
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
On Thu, 10.10.13 13:12, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote:
I was actually planning to rewrite on top of libuv today, but I'm
happy to port to the new, native event library.
Is there any best-practice for using it with multiple threads?
We are pretty conservative on threads so
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
All load balancing would be done by the kernel,
and that's kinda cool, because they actually are good at these things...
This is essentially what I was advocating a while back for other
event-oriented frameworks
Here's a first take on having sabridge use the systemd-native event
library. The current, full diff is also visible on GitHub [1].
Obviously, this work still needs considerable cleanup and tightening.
I like how we're currently hammering out the basics, like the event
library to use and where the
]] Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 10.10.13 13:12, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote:
I was actually planning to rewrite on top of libuv today, but I'm
happy to port to the new, native event library.
Is there any best-practice for using it with multiple threads?
We are
27 matches
Mail list logo
