Re: gnumach and gcc 4.0 (patch 1)

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I'm going to commit the following patch unless someone vetoes: > > Last time I checked, things don't work like that. Thomas has permission to approve patches; that means that he can commit patches on his own authority when he thinks it appropri

Re: [patch #332] POSIX record file locking

Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You are totally right of course. In fact, Marcus just asked yesterday > on IRC whether those notifications of Savannah really serve a purpose, > as the patch is not sent along inlined. I have no objections at all to the Savannah notifications. I'm onl

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

Hi, For people that doesn't like mails coming from savannah bug tracker (this involves me too) I inline the patch. It's quite long (1k lines) but well, just to give an idea of what it does, here it is. 2006-01-20 Gianluca Guida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * vm/pmap.h (pmap_is_dma, pmap_is_norma

[patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue.

URL: Summary: Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. Project: The GNU Hurd Submitted by: gianluca Submitted on: Sat 01/21/06 at 19:39 Cate

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

Nice patch, overall it looks great. A bit more testing and another eyeball check, and it should go in. PS, I'm assuming that the inclusion of ../rtl8139.c was a mistake. ;) ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

On 1/21/06, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS, I'm assuming that the inclusion of ../rtl8139.c was a mistake. ;) Whops! Yes it does, it's not even needed anymore, since some patch in the debian (which I hope is going to be committed soon) already fixes this! Posting cleaned patch s

[patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue.

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4818 (project hurd): This is a new version of the patch. No major improvement, it's just a cleaning of the previous patch: - Removed the rtl8139.c, which I forgot to remove in the previous patch; - Removed some debugging printf that I forgot, in pure StoMach style;

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue.

For inline patches fans, here it is: This is a new version of the patch. No major improvement, it's just a cleaning of the previous patch: - Removed the rtl8139.c, which I forgot to remove in the previous patch; - Removed some debugging printf that I forgot, in pure StoMach style; Happy Testing

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

Gianluca Guida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For people that doesn't like mails coming from savannah bug tracker > (this involves me too) I inline the patch. > It's quite long (1k lines) but well, just to give an idea of what it > does, here it is. Obviously vm bugs are very painful to debug when

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

> For people that doesn't like mails coming from savannah bug > tracker (this involves me too) I inline the patch. It's quite > long (1k lines) but well, just to give an idea of what it does, > here it is. Obviously vm bugs are very painful to debug when they happen. Can you br

Re: [patch #4818] Dynamic memory allocation for Linux Device drivers in glue. [PATCH] [LONG]

Hi, On 1/22/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously vm bugs are very painful to debug when they happen. Can you > briefly describe what testing this patch has undergone? (How > stressful a test, importantly?) Yes, this is THE question. Well, I started writing and testing