Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > >
> > > ->proc->
> > > > ->thrgrp->
> > > > ->thr->
> > > > ->thrctx->
> > > >
> > > interesting, though the thrctx maps most clos
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > >
> > ->proc->
> > > ->thrgrp->
> > > ->thr->
> > > ->thrctx->
> > >
> > interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
> > there may be ma
>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 00:35:46 -0600
>From: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I saw something similar at usenix with my old, hacked kernel config
>file, but not with GENERIC that I just booted.
Well, I appreciate that hint... so I looked for differences between
GENERIC and my kernel config (LAP
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> ->proc->
> > ->thrgrp->
> > ->thr->
> > ->thrctx->
> >
> interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
> there may be many threads running on each #3.
IMHO, I like this less than ks
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
->proc->
> ->thrgrp->
> ->thr->
> ->thrctx->
>
interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
there may be many threads running on each #3.
> --
> Dan Eischen
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> > One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's
> > name should reflect that. (It's view as a group of #4's is more important than
> > as being a part of #1.) So, if you go with
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Wolfskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: j mckitrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >When I try
>
> >cvs -R co -f src/sys/dev/ppbus/immio.c
>
> >I get version 1.15. When I look at the .c,v file in the cvs tree, it says
> >HEAD is 1.16, but $Id says it is 1.15.
On 07-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> >
>> > my favourites are:
>> > proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp
>> >
>> > lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is
>> > scheduled.
>>
>> One other note. #2 is conceptually a relat
On 07-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> that reminds me..
>
> The reason I want to work out the names now is because I have a system up
> and running with the process structure split into these pieces and I wan
> teh names finalised before I take the next step which involves editing
> almost every
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > my favourites are:
> > proc, subproc, lwcpu, lwp
> >
> > lwps are parcelled out to lwcpus to run when the appropriate subproc is
> > scheduled.
>
> One other note. #2 is conceptually a related group of #4's, so I think it's
> name should refle
that reminds me..
The reason I want to work out the names now is because I have a system up
and running with the process structure split into these pieces and I wan
teh names finalised before I take the next step which involves editing
almost every kernel file.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EM
On 06-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>> Jason Evans wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [...]
>> > I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc". I don't
>> > much
>> > care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
>> >
>> >
>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:52:05 +0100
>From: j mckitrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I'm *sure* I'm doing something wrong here, but I can't figure it out.
>I am using cvsup to keep a -current cvs tree on my system. According to
>the web access cvs tree, a file I am looking at should be version 1.16.
>
I'm *sure* I'm doing something wrong here, but I can't figure it out.
I am using cvsup to keep a -current cvs tree on my system. According to
the web access cvs tree, a file I am looking at should be version 1.16.
When I try
cvs -R co -f src/sys/dev/ppbus/immio.c
I get version 1.15. When I l
On 06-Jul-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
>>
>> Jason Evans wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:16:16PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [...]
>> > I think there is a clear argument for #1 to be "struct proc". I don't
>> > much
>> > care what #2, #3, and #4 are called.
>> >
>> >
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ..., I saw a message saying that Vinum was
>> not yet ready for use with DEVFS. Is that still the case?
> I fixed that. :) Let me and Grog know if you have problems.
It basically works for me. Of course, vinum still has a dozen
of bugs that get u
"Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mount: /dev/fd0c: No such file or directory
> It seems there is some type of race to get the fd0c symlink in place
> and I am not winning it.
The symlink DEVFS nodes are going to be created first time they
are referenced. Your mount attempt thus
In the freebsd-current mailing list there is a debate raging under
"chgrp broken on alpha systems", which is much larger than the minute
little chgrp command. It also strikes me as something larger than
freebsd-current. Let me continue my trend of being an idiot by
claiming it is a "freebsd deve
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People are making more and more mistakes that break the Alpha build.
> We will soon have two more arches.
...which won't really make much difference, as 99% of the difference
in userland code is integer and pointer sizes, so for all practical
purposes
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 12:52:06AM -0500, a little birdie told me
that Dan Nelson remarked
> In the last episode (Jul 06), David Scheidt said:
> >
> > I've dodged that problem by SIGSTOPing installworld a couple times during
> > the /sbin install, waiting for softupdates to catchup, and then SIGC
Yes!
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Mark Peek wrote:
> At 4:37 PM +1000 7/6/01, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >Another random thought: If it was easier to build/install a
> >cross-platform version of gcc, it might be easier to convince
> >developers to at least check that compiling on different platforms
> >wor
At 4:37 PM +1000 7/6/01, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>Another random thought: If it was easier to build/install a
>cross-platform version of gcc, it might be easier to convince
>developers to at least check that compiling on different platforms
>works before committing.
Peter,
I had the same idea last n
> >On i386, 'gcc -fsyntax-only -Wall x.c' produces no error. On
> >NetBSD/alpha (same compiler, really), this produces:
> >
> >x.c: In function `func':
> >x.c:4: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
> >
> >It'd be *really* nice if we could add a flag where such errors could be
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:33:27PM +0200, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 10:54 -0700, matt wrote:
> >
> > I don't think ipf is complete in its ipv6 support yet.You can
> > use ipfw instead.
>
> Ipf has been supporting IPv6 for quite some time. It's just that
> one has to enable
Looking for the contract or permanent IT staff? We can recruit
Russian IT professionals for you? Have a look at www.ricsltd.co.uk. We have a lot
to offer!
You will be impressed with our services, low fees as well as quality of
programmers.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to conta
25 matches
Mail list logo
