[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:52AM +0200, Da Zheng wrote:
by the way, which letter should be used for the short option? or
should I just use the long option '--device'?
I think a short option is rather important, as this is likely to be used
often: For r
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:55:52AM +0200, Da Zheng wrote:
> by the way, which letter should be used for the short option? or
> should I just use the long option '--device'?
I think a short option is rather important, as this is likely to be used
often: For running subhurds unprivileged, you
Ben Asselstine, le Fri 22 Aug 2008 13:03:37 -0400, a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Samuel Thibault
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Da Zheng, le Fri 22 Aug 2008 11:55:52 +0200, a écrit :
> >> I wonder why strstr() is harmful.
> >
> > Because it's far less efficient than strchr. Try to
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Samuel Thibault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Da Zheng, le Fri 22 Aug 2008 11:55:52 +0200, a écrit :
>> I wonder why strstr() is harmful.
>
> Because it's far less efficient than strchr. Try to implement strstr
> and strchr yourself without the help of strcmp.
>
It'
Da Zheng, le Fri 22 Aug 2008 11:55:52 +0200, a écrit :
> I wonder why strstr() is harmful.
Because it's far less efficient than strchr. Try to implement strstr
and strchr yourself without the help of strcmp.
Samuel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:43:03AM +0200, zhengda wrote:
Ben Asselstine wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM, zhengda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+case 'f':
+ dev_file = strstr (arg, "=");
+ if (dev_file == NULL)
+ return A
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:43:03AM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> Ben Asselstine wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM, zhengda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> +case 'f':
>>> + dev_file = strstr (arg, "=");
>>> + if (dev_file == NULL)
>>> + return ARGP_ERR_UNKNOWN;
>>> +
Ben Asselstine wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM, zhengda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+case 'f':
+ dev_file = strstr (arg, "=");
+ if (dev_file == NULL)
+ return ARGP_ERR_UNKNOWN;
+ *dev_file = 0;
+ add_dev_map (arg, dev_file+1);
+ break;
I'd feel
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM, zhengda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +case 'f':
> + dev_file = strstr (arg, "=");
> + if (dev_file == NULL)
> + return ARGP_ERR_UNKNOWN;
> + *dev_file = 0;
> + add_dev_map (arg, dev_file+1);
> + break;
I'd feel better about this
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:14 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
Since boot only uses one interface, boot probably accepts only one
interface name from subhurd.
This needn't be the case. In fact, it should be able to expose any
number of objects as devices. A good interface
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:14 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
Since boot only uses one interface, boot probably accepts only one
interface name from subhurd.
This needn't be the case. In fact, it should be able to expose any
number of objects as devices. A good interface
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:14 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
> Since boot only uses one interface, boot probably accepts only one
> interface name from subhurd.
This needn't be the case. In fact, it should be able to expose any
number of objects as devices. A good interface might be:
-d foo=filename1
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* boot/boot.c (ds_device_open): Handle the request to open the virtual
network device.
diff -u boot.old/boot.c boot/boot.c
--- boot.old/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:38:02.
Samuel Thibault wrote:
zhengda, le Tue 19 Aug 2008 17:00:01 +0200, a écrit :
Otherwise, we have to tell pfinet the whole path of the device file. I
think it's a little weird.
Why? We do so for ext2fs and /dev/hd?s?
Ah, I'm stupid.
At first, pfinet, boot and all other components ac
zhengda, le Tue 19 Aug 2008 17:00:01 +0200, a écrit :
> Otherwise, we have to tell pfinet the whole path of the device file. I
> think it's a little weird.
Why? We do so for ext2fs and /dev/hd?s?
Samuel
Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* boot/boot.c (ds_device_open): Handle the request to open the virtual
network device.
diff -u boot.old/boot.c boot/boot.c
--- boot.old/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:38:02.
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
> 2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * boot/boot.c (ds_device_open): Handle the request to open the virtual
> network device.
>
> diff -u boot.old/boot.c boot/boot.c
> --- boot.old/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:38:02.0 +0200
> ++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 07:06:29AM +0200, zhengda wrote:
But the way to open the virtual network interface will be changed if
the translator that helps open the device is created.
Indeed... So I guess we better don't commit it just yet :-)
2008-07-2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*boot/boot.c: add an option to open the virtual network interface
That's not a complete changelog...
+ if (err)
+fprintf (stderr, "open_device returns %x, %s\n",
+ err, strerror (err
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 07:06:29AM +0200, zhengda wrote:
> But the way to open the virtual network interface will be changed if
> the translator that helps open the device is created.
Indeed... So I guess we better don't commit it just yet :-)
> 2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
Hello,
The patch enables boot to open the virtual network interface,
so boot can work with the multiplexer and the subhurd can connect to the
main hurd.
But the way to open the virtual network interface will be changed if the
translator that helps open the device is created.
Here is the patc
Hello,
The patch enables boot to open the virtual network interface,
so boot can work with the multiplexer and the subhurd can connect to the
main hurd.
But the way to open the virtual network interface will be changed if the
translator that helps open the device is created.
Here is the patc
22 matches
Mail list logo
