On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 08:12:52AM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote:
>
> What a nightmare. This must be due to egcs compiling things differently
> from gcc 2.7.1. ...
Yes, at least for the one case in vm_pageout_flush. (I checked
the analogous code on a 3.x-STABLE system and it appears to be fine
for t
On Sat, 10 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> The supposedly atomic functions in i386/include/atomic.h are not
> as atomic as was previously thought :-):
>
> #define atomic_add_short(P, V) (*(u_short*)(P) += (V))
>
> I looked at that kinda funny. But C doesn't guarentee
The supposedly atomic functions in i386/include/atomic.h are not
as atomic as was previously thought :-):
#define atomic_add_short(P, V) (*(u_short*)(P) += (V))
I looked at that kinda funny. But C doesn't guarentee a RMW opcode
for a "+=" !!!. Alan found an example s
Yahhh. I was finally able to reproduce the problem - running Stephen's
16MB make -j5 buildworld test overnight.
I haven't found the exact cause yet, and I suspect that Alan's patch will
not fix it (but I'll try it if I exhaust other possibilities). There is
plenty of free me
Karl Pielorz wrote:
>
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > Make sure you have the absolute latest CURRENT. There was a situation
> > that broken current a week or so ago for 2 days that could result
> > in processes getting stuck in biord on SMP boxes.
OK, source as of 10/Jul/99, 11.20a
Why do we store the utmp/wtmp and last logs in different data
structures?
What seems strange is that they use the different data types to
store the same information (the time):
struct lastlog {
time_t ll_time;
charll_line[UT_LINESIZE];
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Make sure you have the absolute latest CURRENT. There was a situation
> that broken current a week or so ago for 2 days that could result
> in processes getting stuck in biord on SMP boxes.
>
> -Matt
Matt,
Lik
