Hello
The problem doesn't occur when cdrom or disk (or both) on second
controller is disconnected.
I don't know what's wrong, master/slave jumpers are ok, i have only one
additional card (sb live on pci) but taking it off doesn't help.
Maybe it's hard disks fault, it's quite old 1GB model, i had
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 09:56:05PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> There is probably some obscure reason having to do with mig stubs in the
> kernel why those ctype declarations are there. At any rate, I'm
> disinclined to fiddle with the .defs files.
Ah, this is indeed true. A simple test shows
> I am doing this right now where feasible (like, I am doing it for host_t,
> but not for mach_port_name_t, esp as there is no typedef for the latter ;)
> It's only used internally to mark a MACH_MSG_TYPE_PORT_NAME parameter).
mach_port_name_t is not a port type at all. It is the type of port na
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 02:05:20AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The reason for the types in .defs files is for intran/outtran. I would
> tend toward using the specific types generally, because that has more of a
> chance to be mapped source-compatibly in some other RPC system.
I am doing this
I'm glad to hear it's working for you, but that's still not quite the way
I'd like to see it. (The only errors I see are in the conservative
direction, i.e. it works fine, it just blocks interrupts more of the time
than it needs to.) Again, thanks a lot for hacking on this and being so
receptive
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are referring to the fact that I would prefer to use a manifest
> constant versus sysconf or looping until a fit is found? Clearly I
> don't think that is an inferior solution, but rather a practical one.
My point is that you are will
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 12:40:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then
> > indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or
> > _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then
> indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or
> _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX or what we `know' _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX to be.
> I think it's a pity.
You s
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Yes, the Single UNIX specification was in error. This error was taken over
> to POSIX draft 6 (from the Austin group), which also said that hostnames
> are limited to 255 characters. This was fixed in draft 7 by removing this
>
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 08:25:28PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk
>
> (that's the name of a village).
I now found more info at www.recordholders.org:
"The longest host name ever used"
www.tax.taxadvice.taxation.irs.tax-services.
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And Thomas doesn't live in Wales, UK, where we notice:
>
> llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk
So I knew about the name of Llanfair, but I saw this and said "is that
real?" So I typed (well, cut-and-pasted):
ping lla
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Really? Have you seen proposals for handling internet growth?
> Hostnames are already getting longer and longer. I was once at
> "unmvax". Then that became "unmvax.unm.edu". Now my laptop has the
> attractive address "vp19
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH I don't think that an arbitrarily long hostname makes much
> sense.
Really? Have you seen proposals for handling internet growth?
Hostnames are already getting longer and longer. I was once at
"unmvax". Then that became "unmvax.unm.edu".
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:49:36AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> I verified it with draft 7 of IEEE Std 1003.1-200x before posting.
> I also confirmed that previous POSIX standards do not define a
> suitable constant for gethostname(). And finally, the Single UNIX
> Spec
[I may be a Heimdal developer, but these are just my personal views.]
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:15:46PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> I'm posting this message from a heimdal developer to bug-hurd
> for discussion on the topic of HOST_NAME_MAX. I don't have a
> draft of POSIX so I can't veri
Good news. The applied patch seems to work correctly. I tested oskit-mach
for about an hour with a stress test. No panics:)
Please look through the patch, and tell me how far away from a good patch
I am.
wagi
Index: osenv_timer.c
==
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:15:46PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> However, your 1st note is something I don't agree with. For
> example MAXPATHLEN is defined on many systems, but is not the best way
> to find the limitations of the system because different filesystems
> could have different lim
17 matches
Mail list logo
