Re: [systemd-devel] How to add a second bridge to a nspawn container?

2019-01-04 Thread Cristian Rodríguez
El 04-01-2019 a las 2:50, Mantas Mikulėnas escribió: That's because the specified interface is not a bridge... Yeah, that and it is a wireless interface..it may not work .. OP needs to use ipvlan instead. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-d

Re: [systemd-devel] clang-format: auto-formatting the code base of systemd

2019-01-04 Thread Sebastian Jennen
Hello Giacinto, from a semantic point of view the source code should not change at all with clang-format. There is only one problem with the custom preprocessor pragma for the "new" keyword, which needs to be excluded explicitly. See old pull request here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd

Re: [systemd-devel] clang-format: auto-formatting the code base of systemd

2019-01-04 Thread Giacinto Cifelli
Hello Sebastian, > - reformats all existing code, which requires review this can be possibly be automated, by comparing the generated precompiled files. > > Cheers, Sebastian Jennen > Regards, Giacinto ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@list

[systemd-devel] clang-format: auto-formatting the code base of systemd

2019-01-04 Thread Sebastian Jennen
Hello systemd team, there is a pull request currently on systemd, which adds a .clang-format support, which you can find here: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/11308 clang-format is an automatic formatter for C code maintained by the llvm project. It works by tokenizing the source code

Re: [systemd-devel] How to add a second bridge to a nspawn container?

2019-01-04 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
04.01.2019 6:23, Alexander E. Patrakov пишет: >> >> I am not sure whether "Operation not supported" means that there is >> something wrong with that config? or that it is not possible to create a >> bridge to a wireless NIC? > > To be able to participate in a bridge, the wireless card must act a

[systemd-devel] sd-bus parameter names

2019-01-04 Thread Giacinto Cifelli
Hi, I would like to give my DBus parameters names other than the default arg_X for the introspection. Is it ok if I post some commits to do that, or is the feature excluded by choice? The changes I would propose are: - sd-bus-vtable.h: struct sd_bus_vtable extended like: struct sd_bus_vtable {