On Thu Feb 5 21:07:18 PST 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
> Quoting erik quanstrom :
>
> >
> > i was not thinking along those lines. :-( i just wanted to see a picture
> > of
> > the board. the render is nice, but the toy budget is not so large.
> >
>
> I did spend a bit of time trowling throug
Quoting erik quanstrom :
i was not thinking along those lines. :-( i just wanted to see a picture of
the board. the render is nice, but the toy budget is not so large.
I did spend a bit of time trowling through IRC logs; I could have sworn
aiju had posted a photo of a populated (and runni
On Thu Feb 5 20:38:05 PST 2015, k...@sciops.net wrote:
> Quoting erik quanstrom :
>
> >
> > does anyone have a picture of this board?
> >
>
> If you're asking for technical purposes, there's a render at
> http://9front.org/img/aijuboard.png but I'm not sure that's the
> final cut.
>
> If you're
Quoting erik quanstrom :
does anyone have a picture of this board?
If you're asking for technical purposes, there's a render at
http://9front.org/img/aijuboard.png but I'm not sure that's the
final cut.
If you're asking for physical proof of its existence, one of the
guys who owns one is go
> does anyone have a picture of this board?
That sounds like the challenge Olimex used to rise to,
back when they started as a prototyping and production board
manufacturers. I don't see that that is their focus still, but they
surely have not lost their skills.
It would be nice to have a commu
On Thu Feb 5 11:37:56 PST 2015, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> aiju build a computer arround the xilinx zynq-7000 (dualcore arm
> cortex A9 with fpga):
>
> http://aiju.de/electronics/aijuboard/
>
> and wrote kernel and bootloader here:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/source/browse/sy
Hells yes!
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Quintile wrote:
> ooo! I think we are about to start using zinq's in a new project...
>
> I have gotta try it 😄
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Feb 2015, at 19:42, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> >
> > aiju build a computer arround the xilinx zynq-7000
ooo! I think we are about to start using zinq's in a new project...
I have gotta try it 😄
-Steve
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 19:42, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
>
> aiju build a computer arround the xilinx zynq-7000 (dualcore arm
> cortex A9 with fpga):
>
> http://aiju.de/electronics/aijuboard
Champion.
I have a Parallella, with a 7010, and a Epiphany-III. Was wondering if I'd
pull the finger out and port Plan 9, or even pay for it. Seems I might not
have to. There is also a SnowLEO SDR unit that uses a 7010 and a LimeMicro
chip (think BladeRF).
Thank you! Great news!
On Fri, Feb 6, 2
aiju build a computer arround the xilinx zynq-7000 (dualcore arm
cortex A9 with fpga):
http://aiju.de/electronics/aijuboard/
and wrote kernel and bootloader here:
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/source/browse/sys/src/9/zynq/
http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/source/browse/sys/src/boot/zynq
yeah, maybe. i dont know if this is the problem. just what i'd try
first. :)
--
cinap
On Thu Feb 5 11:20:53 PST 2015, 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
> > try changeing the
> > following line in /sys/src/cmd/usb/lib/dev.c in loaddevdescr():
> >
> > uchar buf[Ddevlen+255];
> >
> > to:
> >
> > uchar buf[Ddevlen];
>
> See /n/sources/patch/maybe/usb-short-desc
i should have remem
> try changeing the
> following line in /sys/src/cmd/usb/lib/dev.c in loaddevdescr():
>
> uchar buf[Ddevlen+255];
>
> to:
>
> uchar buf[Ddevlen];
See /n/sources/patch/maybe/usb-short-desc
Did someone say there was a Zynq kernel?
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:15 AM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
> On Thu Feb 5 09:28:09 PST 2015, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> > labs loaddevdescr() reads 255+18 bytes device descriptor
> > instead of 18 bytes for some reason. try changeing the
> > following
On Thu Feb 5 09:28:09 PST 2015, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> labs loaddevdescr() reads 255+18 bytes device descriptor
> instead of 18 bytes for some reason. try changeing the
> following line in /sys/src/cmd/usb/lib/dev.c in loaddevdescr():
>
> uchar buf[Ddevlen+255];
>
> to:
>
>
Basically, Plan 9 (kernel and applications) was designed and written for
multiprocessors,
and the kernel is written with pre-emptive concurrency in mind (rather
than, say, retrofitting
it all). That extends to the drivers and most platform-specific kernel code
(except where someone slipped up,
whic
labs loaddevdescr() reads 255+18 bytes device descriptor
instead of 18 bytes for some reason. try changeing the
following line in /sys/src/cmd/usb/lib/dev.c in loaddevdescr():
uchar buf[Ddevlen+255];
to:
uchar buf[Ddevlen];
and see if you still get the short descriptor warning.
option 2 doesn't make sense. using the cpu(1) as a test setup, please show
how such a wstat would work atomically if one does 'mv /mnt/term/foo
/tmp/foo'. note that 'cpu' exports the local fs to the cpu it connects to
(which is then mounted on /mnt/term). also one can 'cpu' to a different
domain
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 08:20:30 PST erik quanstrom wrote:
> > All this reflections arise from the search for an orthodox way to change
> > the tree structure of a synthetic filesystem.
> > Moving large real files is not my actual issue here. I'm wondering for a
> > synthetic filesystem in which, when
Il 05/Feb/2015 17:26 "erik quanstrom" ha scritto:
> > I'm wondering for a
> > synthetic filesystem in which, when you move a folder in a special
> > directory, something magic happens.
> > As far as I can see, it is not possible with a 9p2000 fileservice, is
it?
>
> i don't see why you can't make
Don't be evil :-)
On 05.02.2015 16:40, Steven Stallion wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Siarhei Zirukin
wrote:
He didn't ask about 9front.
What's 9front?
(Apologies, couldn't resist...)
> All this reflections arise from the search for an orthodox way to change
> the tree structure of a synthetic filesystem.
> Moving large real files is not my actual issue here. I'm wondering for a
> synthetic filesystem in which, when you move a folder in a special
> directory, something magic hap
Hello everyone,
I don't know how much interest there'd be, but if anyone ever needs
to run sam standalone on *nix (that is, without plan9port), there's a
standalone version available. It's based on the original port to X11
back in the 80s released by Lucent in 1989 or so.
There aren't any
> Our pleasure. We are still 100% dedicated to Plan 9.
Not that anyone could doubt it, but it is reassuring to hear it from
the horse's mouth :-)
Lucio.
Viva Plan 9!
On Thu Feb 05 2015 at 8:11:22 AM Brantley Coile
wrote:
> Our pleasure. We are still 100% dedicated to Plan 9.
>
> Brantley Coile
>
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 11:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> > sorry for the delay.
> >
> > robert ball and brantley coile replaced
> > the dead motherboa
> Also, in the absence of symbolic links, you don't get to choose
> whether to migrate the "node" or the contents. Things get hairy, not
> just complicated.
sorry, we're going to have to disagree on this one. symbolic links are
a huge pain in the butt.
and to address your issue, both find and d
Our pleasure. We are still 100% dedicated to Plan 9.
Brantley Coile
On Feb 5, 2015, at 11:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> sorry for the delay.
>
> robert ball and brantley coile replaced
> the dead motherboard for me, in my decidely non virtual
> environment. many thanks to them for their hel
On Thu Feb 5 03:29:11 PST 2015, st...@quintile.net wrote:
> I am trying to use some micro sd cards with plan9.
> Thse are kingston SDC4/4Gbsp cards (4Gb) for embedded stuff.
>
> usbfat: won't recognise them and usb/disk with debug on grumbles
>
> 8.out: startdevs: opening #0 /dev/usb/ep7.0
> I am fairly sure there was multicore support in the MIPS
> kernels for the big challange machines they had at the labs.
I was only listing the kernels still present in Plan 9.
The vt5 and ch kernels (and probably others) had
multiprocessing support as well.
--
David du Colombier
sorry for the delay.
robert ball and brantley coile replaced
the dead motherboard for me, in my decidely non virtual
environment. many thanks to them for their help.
- erik
Quoting Steven Stallion :
What's 9front?
Medium- to low-quality mushroom cloud computing project designed to
vandalize treasured artwork.
Every interaction I've had with the dev team has been awful.
khm
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Siarhei Zirukin wrote:
> He didn't ask about 9front.
>
What's 9front?
(Apologies, couldn't resist...)
I am fairly sure there was multicore support in the MIPS
kernels for the big challange machines they had at the labs.
-Steve
He didn't ask about 9front.
On 2/5/15, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
> and pc64 and zynq :-)
>
> --
> cinap
>
>
and pc64 and zynq :-)
--
cinap
I am trying to use some micro sd cards with plan9.
Thse are kingston SDC4/4Gbsp cards (4Gb) for embedded stuff.
usbfat: won't recognise them and usb/disk with debug on grumbles
8.out: startdevs: opening #0 /dev/usb/ep7.0
8.out: opendev 0x4b618 /dev/usb/ep7.0
8.out: /dev/us
Hi 9fans,
Long time lurker, go easy please :-)
I understand that Plan 9 is alive these days via its forks - 9atom,
9front and 9legacy (not a fork!), and (perhaps?) Inferno less so; but is
there any functionality in Inferno which would benefit Plan 9 but was
never ported?
I know Plan 9 4th E
As far I know, only the pc, teg2 and k10 kernels support multiprocessing.
--
David du Colombier
Doesn't Plan 9 run on the dual core ARM Tegra2?
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Dante wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Does Plan9 have support for multi-core processors?
> Is explicit support needed at all (like in SMP)?
>
> D
>
>
> I'm not an advocate of Tmove in any way, but I can't really grasp the cons.
> I'm sure that its omission was an explicit design choise, but where I
> can read about the arguments that lead to such decision?
It's a long time ago, but I seem to recall that the clinching argument
hinged around moun
> I mean we could simply introduce a new command "rename oldpath
> newpath" that only works when both path share the same mount point.
> This way the mv commands would keep the old "safe" semantic, while the
> new command would protect the user to accidentally disclosure his data
> to the world via
Actually I've found a 9 years old mail about Tmove:
http://comp.os.plan9.narkive.com/xYi8Vg5d/9fans-fuse-bashing#post40
I'm not an advocate of Tmove in any way, but I can't really grasp the cons.
I'm sure that its omission was an explicit design choise, but where I
can read about the arguments tha
2015-02-05 5:13 GMT+01:00 :
>
> > But why we don't have Tmove for example?
>
> Because its semantics are much, much more complex and the users need
> to be aware of the difference.
This shouldn't be so hard to obtain.
I mean we could simply introduce a new command "rename oldpath
newpath" that on
Hi all,
Does Plan9 have support for multi-core processors?
Is explicit support needed at all (like in SMP)?
D
2015-02-05 5:26 GMT+01:00 :
> > But why we don't have Tmove for example?
>
> http://9front.org/img/tmove.jpg
>
>
ROFTL! :-D
45 matches
Mail list logo
