You said "fixing kmalloc was easy", but I didn't see you post any change to
the oskit code. I'm not at all sure that kmalloc should change.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>
> > oskit and not for oskit-mach. So I will write a patch for oskit and then
> > I'll see what happends.
>
> It seems that the oskit wrappers for kmalloc and kfree don't pass the
> right flags to oskit_linux_mem_alloc and oskit_linux_mem_free.
I w
libports is a pretty good approximation of what we (the Hurd developers)
think an IPC system ought to provide for server writers. It is certainly
an open question as to how much is done in the microkernel's IPC system and
how much is done in a user-level library. We do have strong opinions about
Hi,
I've pored over all the documentation and am getting into the source code for
the relative bits. I've come to a decision point and am interested in some
feedback from the list.
I'm trying to decide between implementing something like L4Mach or
reimplementing the Hurd servers to use L4 tasks
Hi Diego,
> I've noticed that access to files on Hurd is noticeable slower than using
> Linux. For example compiling hurd require a lot of disk access using hurd,
> while cross compiling hurd on linux uses few disk access.
I'm sure you're not comparing apples and oranges here, though it may
see
On Mon, 05 Nov 2001, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>
>
> Fixing kmalloc was easy, but I've some problems with kfree. kfree takes
Oops, it should be oskit_skbufio_mem_alloc and not kmalloc. Here is the
bt for freeing memory:
#0 panic (
fmt=0x209960 "../.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> oskit and not for oskit-mach. So I will write a patch for oskit and then
> I'll see what happends.
It seems that the oskit wrappers for kmalloc and kfree don't pass the
right flags to oskit_linux_mem_alloc and oskit_linux_mem_free.
Fixing kmalloc was
Hi,
I've noticed that access to files on Hurd is noticeable slower than using
Linux. For example compiling hurd require a lot of disk access using hurd,
while cross compiling hurd on linux uses few disk access.
The question is: there is some kind of caching on hurd or in gnumach? Can be
useful
Hmm. I am not in a position to actually debug this, but I am reading the
gdb sources and I think I understand what is happening. In gdb/inflow.c is
the following comment and code, which gets run when you do an "attach"
(among other times).
/* If attach_flag is set, we don't know whether
