Thomas Schwinge, le Sat 24 Mar 2007 18:13:25 +0100, a écrit :
> Either I'm off here, but if I convert a nanosecond value to microseconds,
> I divide the value by thousand and don't multiply with thousand.
> Correct?
Yes.
Samuel
___
Bug-hurd mailing li
Hello!
Either I'm off here, but if I convert a nanosecond value to microseconds,
I divide the value by thousand and don't multiply with thousand.
Correct?
#v+
2007-03-24 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* isofs/inode.c (read_disknode): Correctly convert from nanoseconds to
I have attached the second revision of my proposal which I will send
in tomorrow. It addresses the concerns made by Richard. I decided to
not to make an attempt at a sketch of handling ioctls, but handling
them are included as a part of the project's goals.
I also made a commitment of having a c
Hello!
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 03:53:56PM +0100, I wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 11:27:58PM +0100, I wrote:
> > [Building glibc with GCC 4.1.]
> >
> > And in fact also glibc-proper code is affected:
> >
> > #v+
> > [EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/glibc-GCC4.1-without_Roland_patches/glibc-2.3.
Hi,
Ok, I would like to try it. Here is my preliminary thoughts:
I think there is at least three solutions:
1) Modify each default server that needs to support overriding. A default
server should check wether it should redirect a service call to an
overriding server.
It is the current solution
Hi,
Ok, I would like to try it. Here are my preliminary thoughts:
I think there are at least three solutions:
1) Modify each default server that needs to support overriding. A default
server should check wether it should redirect a service call to an
overriding server.
It is the current soluti
Richard Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> There are two main points I want to discuss about.
>
> First, in your example about pfinet (device-tunnel-pfinet), I don't see
> the need for a single format. Such an abstraction could force the
> implementation to ignore some important bits,
