On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:18 -0600, Mike Latimer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:25:32 AM Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 17:14 -0600, Mike Latimer wrote:
> > > Any better options or ideas?
> >
> > Is part of the problem that shell is a terrible choice for
On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 17:14 -0600, Mike Latimer wrote:
> Any better options or ideas?
Is part of the problem that shell is a terrible choice for this kind of
check?
Would shelling out to a helper utility allow this to be written in
something better?
I think we'd still be constrained in the
Hi Ian,
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 10:25:32 AM Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 17:14 -0600, Mike Latimer wrote:
> > Any better options or ideas?
>
> Is part of the problem that shell is a terrible choice for this kind of
> check?
There is some truth to that... ;)
> Would
Hi,
In an environment with read-only image files being shared across domains, the
block script becomes exponentially slower with every block attached. While
this is irritating with a few domains, it becomes very problematic with
hundreds of domains.
Part of the issue was mentioned in a udev
