search for: msg00287

...builds failing >because something in the gnutls* family didn't exist there when I was >making the changes to add the domain master secret code.... After a bit >of digging, it seems it was a perhaps a CENTOS6 environment: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00287.html > >and since IIUC that's not an issue any more.... > Oh, cool to know. Michal also found the patch [1] where Dan switched the gnutls from being mandatory to making it optional and there is no explanation for that change in the commit message: [1] f587c27768ee13f5bed6a9262106307...

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:27:54AM +0300, Maxim Kozover wrote: > I'd like to ask you, please, about multithreading with libguestfs. > I'm using libguestfs 1.36.4 with Perl front-end. > > Should it be possible to have the same libguestfs appliance provide both > fuse interface and periodically perform some longer APIs like find0? > > I mean make one Perl thread do

On 05/29/2018 03:38 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:37:44AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 05/25/2018 09:17 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> >>>>> We should probably seed it with data from /dev/urandom, and/or the new >>>>> Linux getrandom() syscall (or BSD equivalent). >>> >>> I'm not quite sure that right

...n the gnutls* family didn't exist there when I was >> > making the changes to add the domain master secret code.... After a bit >> > of digging, it seems it was a perhaps a CENTOS6 environment: >> > >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00287.html >> > >> > and since IIUC that's not an issue any more.... >> > >> >> Oh, cool to know. Michal also found the patch [1] where Dan switched the gnutls >> from being mandatory to making it optional and there is no explanation for that >> cha...

...most > immediate crash when the filesystem is accessed. That's expected because plain 1.36 doesn't support multithreading, but ... > I've put the most recent gnulib, changed a bit bootstrap etc, put the > patches from https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-June/ > msg00287.html and rebuilt. ... OK. > The system seems to work (with single-threaded fuse). > Changed fuse_loop to fuse_loop_mt, rebuilt and fuse is stuck on the first > call to appropriate fuse "system call" like mount_local_getattr in case of > ls. > It is stuck at guestfs_lstatn...

...of the CI platform builds failing because something in the gnutls* family didn't exist there when I was making the changes to add the domain master secret code.... After a bit of digging, it seems it was a perhaps a CENTOS6 environment: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00287.html and since IIUC that's not an issue any more.... John now if I could only figure out why my mail client seems to be dropping any patches with "crypto" in the subject line (I'm missing patches 2-4 and 10 from the series referenced above)...

...use something in the gnutls* family didn't exist there when I was > > making the changes to add the domain master secret code.... After a bit > > of digging, it seems it was a perhaps a CENTOS6 environment: > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00287.html > > > > and since IIUC that's not an issue any more.... > > > > Oh, cool to know. Michal also found the patch [1] where Dan switched the gnutls > from being mandatory to making it optional and there is no explanation for that > change in the commit message...

...o prove a point that it can work if you specify where the MTFTP server is. PXE 3.0 has a MTFTP discovery process built in that defaults to on that you may need to turn off. I'll set up a MTFTP atftpd server see if it appeases it. Links: http://osdir.com/ml/network.dhcp.isc.dhcp-server/2003-01/msg00287.html Why use vendor class option: http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=HOWTO7071 http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21247032 Option 60 not set, option 43 not set didn't work - so I did try it simply first. Will reverse engineer this: http://ccmexec....

...n't exist there when I was > > > > making the changes to add the domain master secret code.... After a bit > > > > of digging, it seems it was a perhaps a CENTOS6 environment: > > > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2016-April/msg00287.html > > > > > > > > and since IIUC that's not an issue any more.... > > > > > > > > > > Oh, cool to know. Michal also found the patch [1] where Dan switched the gnutls > > > from being mandatory to making it optional and there is...

...en the filesystem is accessed. > > That's expected because plain 1.36 doesn't support multithreading, but ... > > > I've put the most recent gnulib, changed a bit bootstrap etc, put the > > patches from https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-June/ > > msg00287.html and rebuilt. > > ... OK. > > > The system seems to work (with single-threaded fuse). > > Changed fuse_loop to fuse_loop_mt, rebuilt and fuse is stuck on the first > > call to appropriate fuse "system call" like mount_local_getattr in case > of > >...

> <snip > > > > Nope, I got desperate troubleshooting and searching the web for other > solutions. > Others were using just "PXEClient" which may have worked with legacy > boot but not EFI. > > > _ If you use Vendor Class Identifier, can you (or, are you allowed > > to) simultaneously choose a (boot)filename for each Client System > >

<snip > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text, especially the archives of mailing lists. Q: Why is Top-posting such a bad thing? I apologize in advance for the potentially-dumb comments/questions. _ Do you really need the Vendor Class Identifier option included in the "if option arch" conditions? _ Do you really need the Vendor Class Identifier

Previously posted in 2015: v1: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-June/msg00048.html v2: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2015-June/msg00118.html This series was posted about 4 weeks ago: v3: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2017-June/msg00287.html There is no change in this series except I rebased it against current upstream head and retested. Last time there was some discussion and patch review, but no change appears to be needed. Rich.