search for: unmak

On 2014-06-12 04:27, Rusty Russell wrote: > Henning Schild <henning.schild at siemens.com> writes: >> Hi, >> >> i am working on the jailhouse[1] project and am currently looking at >> inter-VM communication. We want to connect guests directly with virtual >> consoles based on shared memory. The code complexity in the hypervisor >> should be minimal, it

On 2014-06-12 04:27, Rusty Russell wrote: > Henning Schild <henning.schild at siemens.com> writes: >> Hi, >> >> i am working on the jailhouse[1] project and am currently looking at >> inter-VM communication. We want to connect guests directly with virtual >> consoles based on shared memory. The code complexity in the hypervisor >> should be minimal, it

.../dev. I traced the problem to the nsswitch.ldap that I put into place as nsswitch.conf. If I have: hosts: files dns the system boots just fine. If I have: hosts: files dns ldap the system cannot deal with the udev devices correctly. I have confirmed this by repeatedly making this change and unmaking it and the system was wonky when ldap was included and worked fine when ldap wasn't included. Is there a logical reason why this would be happening? I'll be happy to post any relevant info to my system if that would help in explaining the situation, but I'm not sure if any other se...

...ses with offsets > into a shared memory region associated with or part of a virtio > device. We would also need a way of defining the shared memory region. But that's not the problem. If such a feature is not accepted by the guest? How to you fall back? We don't add features which unmake the standard. > That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work > against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or > storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. This seems ill thought out. How will you program a NIC via the...

...specialized hypervisors (often embedded, customized guests etc.). The shared memory regions could be exposed as a BARs (PCI) or additional address ranges (device tree) and addressed in the redefined guest address fields via some region index and offset. > > We don't add features which unmake the standard. > >> That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work >> against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or >> storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. > > This seems ill thought out. How wil...

...specialized hypervisors (often embedded, customized guests etc.). The shared memory regions could be exposed as a BARs (PCI) or additional address ranges (device tree) and addressed in the redefined guest address fields via some region index and offset. > > We don't add features which unmake the standard. > >> That would preserve zero-copy capabilities (as long as you can work >> against the shared mem directly, e.g. doing DMA from a physical NIC or >> storage device into it) and keep the hypervisor out of the loop. > > This seems ill thought out. How wil...

...schema nor one specified by the user/code - it''s some random time that''s > ''pretty close'' to those ones. i agree that in 97% percent of case it''ll be > pretty damn close - but we all those kind of bugs are days * number_of_users > in > the unmaking. > >> Thinking about this just a little bit more, I would argue that this should >> simply be a FAQ / Wiki entry. This whole issue is resolved by doing: >> >> class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base >> protected >> def after_create () reload end >> en...

line 212 of postgresql_adapter.rb is return Time.now.to_s if value =~ /^\(''now''::text\)::(date|timestamp)/ i don''t think this will work. in postgresql the field ''now'' is pinned to the SAME TIME for the duration of a transaction. eg. if you do begin transaction; insert into t values(42, ''now''); # sleep one minute