From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Tue 17 Aug 2004 - 23:26:53 BST
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:11:12PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:08:19PM +0200, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
> > On Di, 2004-08-17 at 21:14, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 04:58:38PM +0200, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
> > > > > On Di, 2004-08-17 at 14:37, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > > > Hello
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have got a request to include vproc into util-vserver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=258038
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where can I find that tool, and do you think it will work with
> > > > > > the stable release of util-vserver?
> > > > >
> > > > > Will work with stable util-vserver (they don't interact in any way
> > > > > anyways), but some switches may work in an unexpected way on vserver
> > > > > 1.9.x since the logic behind the flags changed, see [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you could enhance the tool to recognize the kernel version and use
> > > > > flags accordingly, or simply backport setattr from the alpha branch?
> > > > > (IIRC setattr allows to set the flags directly, so it should work for
> > > > > both, old and new flag logic).
> > > >
> > > > yes, setattr would be the better way to go, as the
> > > > vproc utility was just a quick and dirty hack as
> > > > all my userspace tools ;)
> > >
> > > So you say that setattr (that is already included) is better than
> > > vproc?
> >
> > Ah, i forgot to mention that the version of setattr included with the
> > stable tools does not allow to change the flags for proc entries, just
>
> Ahh ok.
>
> > the flags needed for unification. That's why i said you should backport
> > setattr from the unstable branch.
>
> I see. Is the setattr from unstable well tested and backwards compatible?
>
> I do not want to throw something into Debian right now (untested) because
> we are _very_ close to a release. But I do want support for 2.6 kernel. :)
> (I have not tested 2.6 kernel yet myself).
well, 2.6 linux-vserver aka. vs1.9.x IMHO requires
the alpha util-vserver branch to become usable ...
talk with enrico to get more details ...
best,
Herbert
> Regards,
>
> // Ola
>
> > Sorry for any confusion I caused.
> >
> > HTH
> > Bjoern
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Vserver mailing list
> > Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
>
> --
> --------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
> / opal_at_debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
> | opal_at_lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
> \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver