Hello!
I think there's some misunderstanding or miscommunication here.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 12:14:56PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The skips are there because those msgids were used for something different
> in the past. It's best not to reuse them.
I'm aware of that and in fact that's ex
The skips are there because those msgids were used for something different
in the past. It's best not to reuse them.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Hello!
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:07:34PM +0200, I wrote:
> Now that it finally works, I can now polish and test my patch a bit. :-)
Here we go.
There are a few places marked with ``TODO''. Please comment on them.
If someone wants to see my testing equipment, I'll happily provide it.
I worke
Hello!
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:43:57PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 25 Apr 2007 15:32:28 +0200, a ?crit :
> > As there is already at least one person (Samuel) to use the
> > `i386_set_gdt' and `i386_get_gdt' routines on GNU Mach (in glibc)
>
> I'm not using it: the c
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 25 Apr 2007 15:32:28 +0200, a écrit :
> As there is already at least one person (Samuel) to use the
> `i386_set_gdt' and `i386_get_gdt' routines on GNU Mach (in glibc)
I'm not using it: the code in glibc is still not enabled. I'd say
gnumach1 should be fixed instead.
Hello!
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 08:39:25PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> CVSROOT: /cvsroot/hurd
> Module name: gnumach
> Branch: gnumach-1-branch
> Changes by: Samuel Thibault 06/11/05 20:39:25
>
> Modified files:
> . : ChangeLog
> i386/i386
Hello!
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 03:04:26PM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Okay, a new zalloc zone would be overkill, but I've implemented a tiny
> > new kernel object, lumped it all together -- and it even works, it seems!
> >
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:13:48PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> * linux/src/drivers/net/ne.c (bad_clone_list): Add the RealTek
> 8029 PCI card's signature.
I'd like to point out again that my RealTek 8029 PCI card did work
before. So either there are different signatures for t
