On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:54 AM, EBo wrote:
> One of the things I noticed fairly consistently. When recompiling the
> system various programs are rebuilt/installed while the system is running.
> Unfortunately 9vx does not deal gracefully with this and sometimes
> segfaults. The solution that ha
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version. It was only added as an
>> attempt
>> to deal with people who do not want to make a second copy of the root.
>
> Ebo, I'm sorry if I added to the confusion.
>
> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> Korn's paper "Sym
> I'm fairly certain this is a bug in the vx32 runtime. I can make
> failures occur less frequently by booting with smp turned off. Other
> ways to explode 9vx include doing a huge commit in sysfromiso.
>
> There's a problem in there somewhere, I'm still trying to work out how
> to even debug it
On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:03:18 -0800, Nick LaForge
wrote:
>>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
>
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
>
> I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
> no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
>
I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
man pages or source.
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:07 AM, EBo wrote:
> Have you been able to do do anything and cause it to repeatedly die in the
> same place?
I can drive it over the edge on SMP if I move a lot of data through it.
It's harder to blow it up on non-SMP but a mk all in /sys/src will do the job.
ron
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:02 AM, EBo wrote:
>
> no real confusion. Using symlinks was simply a judgment call. I consider
> it a hack, but it addresses the issue allowing user modifiable roots while
> also allowing a mode which ensures a pristine environment on boot.
it was the right call.
ron
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:30 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
> man pages or source.
>
>
Unless they like emacs.
>> Have you been able to do do anything and cause it to repeatedly die in
>> the
>> same place?
>
> I can drive it over the edge on SMP if I move a lot of data through it.
What's your best guess to where to start looking at the problem?
> It's harder to blow it up on non-SMP but a mk all in /sy
> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
> man pages or source.
maybe, but I know that the first time submitted a package for review they
specifically pointed it out and asked me to break them up. I do not
remember if it was rejected for that reason, or stated as a
On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned up
primarily references to your original post (and a former US
On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:59:33 PDT Chad Brown wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 10:48 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>
> > Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
> > Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
>
> Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned
>> Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a global thing: see
>> Korn's paper "Symlinks are a botch".
>
> Can I beg a specific title or reference? My efforts with google turned
up
> primarily references to your original post (and a former US Ambassador
to
> Togo).
I'm personally bet
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 08:00:59PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Wed May 26 12:33:49 EDT 2010, fr...@inua.be wrote:
> > I don't see a follow-up on this topic... I hope someone still has an
> > idea.
>
> not really. you may wish to double-check the vga register
I used aux/vga -ip with some di
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:26 PM, EBo wrote:
>
>> I don't think the tinycore guys would refuse tvx because of included
>> man pages or source.
>
> maybe, but I know that the first time submitted a package for review they
> specifically pointed it out and asked me to break them up.
Hmm. Seems that
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> I think Ron was referring to Korn's 1987 usenet posting,
> where Korn said "the implementation of symbolic links on BSD
> Unix is a botch".
Uh oh. Is my memory really that bad? Cart me off to the Rock of Ages
Home for Retired Hackers! Do I get
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:11 PM, EBo wrote:
> That's how I break it, but I thought it had to do with overwriting
> programs while running them.
Interesting, but I doubt that's it. Reason being that I can also drive
it to destruction by doing a very large tar pipeline or HG commit.
But what occu
I'm trying to create a reproducer. This little gem does crash it
frequently. Note that tar and mk install are doing lots of creates too
-- you're welcome to try this.
term% cat lotsafiles.c
#include
#include
void
main(int, char**)
{
int i = 0;
while (1) {
in
Could not crash with your program, but it crashed quite fast with this one:
#include
#include
#include
enum {
NPROC=10,
};
void
crproc(void * p)
{
int i = (int)p;
while (1) {
int fd;
char *name = smprint("/tmp/%d", i);
fd = create(name, OWRITE, 0666);
19 matches
Mail list logo
