Re: what's different with AHC between -stable and -current?

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
David E. Cross wrote... > I have 3 AHC devices that work great under -STABLE, but -CURRENT doesn't > even acknowledge they exist. GENERIC kernels on both. Here is the boot > information from the working -STABLE system: > > Probing for devices on PCI bus 1: > ahc0: rev 0x00 int a irq 21 on pci

what's different with AHC between -stable and -current?

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
I have 3 AHC devices that work great under -STABLE, but -CURRENT doesn't even acknowledge they exist. GENERIC kernels on both. Here is the boot information from the working -STABLE system: Probing for devices on PCI bus 1: ahc0: rev 0x00 int a irq 21 on pci1.4.0 ahc0: aic7890/91 Wide Channel

Re: laying down tags

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
> I get very stubborn when I'm given (what appears to me to be) a bogus > argument, even if the ultimate conclusion is right. The reason given > for the conclusion has to hold water. I figured somebody else would jump on this one, which is why I never bothered to respond myself. :) - Jordan T

Re: NFS Test patch.. Anyone tested it?

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
I have not tested, but I also gave it a very good look, and it looks solid. I would certainly like to see it in -current for some real life testing and then MFC-ed at the earliest convience :). Currently we are running off of some patches that I have written... that scares me, alot :) I would l

NFS Test patch.. Anyone tested it?

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
Matthew Dillon wrote: > > Here's the location: > > http://www.backplane.com/FreeBSD4/ > > It's in the 'NFS bugs first found by David E. Cross' section. > I've looked it over a bit and can't see any major problems.. and it definitly does fix some problems.. Has anyone tried i

Re: Remote serial gdb--status?

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > It looks like isa/sio.c still won't allow you to set a port as both > a low-level console and the gdb port. I could not get remote gdb > to work correctly after the sio probe without designating the port > for low-level console I/O. Now that I've d

Re: ROOTDEVNAME error in conf/LINT

1999-06-21 Thread Mikhail Teterin
Bruce Evans once wrote: > >that may change as SCSI disk sizes keep climbing and too large > >partitions take performance hits. > > > >alternative is to change MAXPARTITIONS? to 16? > > One reason is that the slice data format is better. It doesn't have > arbitrary limits like 8 o

Re: laying down tags

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > > I notice that in the last 6 months a change has occurred in how we use > > > > our cvs tools, in that there's a great increase in the usage of tags. > > > > Would you mind giving one example where not having tags hurt us? > > > Sure. When multi

Re: laying down tags

1999-06-21 Thread Anonymous
> > > I notice that in the last 6 months a change has occurred in how we use > > > our cvs tools, in that there's a great increase in the usage of tags. > > Would you mind giving one example where not having tags hurt us? Sure. When multiple developers are trying to work together as well as tra

Re: ROOTDEVNAME error in conf/LINT

1999-06-21 Thread Doug White
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, attila wrote: > am one of those who suffers from lack of politically correct > attitude -- I dont do M$lop (refuse to), so why should I > worry about slices? never need slices before M$lop however, > that may change as SCSI disk sizes keep climbing and to