Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:10:50 -0700
From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:27:15PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:58:39PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> [...]
> > The patch is not a problem (attached). I've been looking a
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I asked this on -hackers a little while ago but no response. I'm curious
if anyone has made an attempt to port these Winmodem drivers.
http://www.linuxant.com/drivers/
I did look into it, but conclud
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:49:12 -0700
From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:50:02 -0700
>From: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
>o We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1 todo
> list to the 5.2 todo list. I think t
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:50:02 -0700
From: Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gang,
With the gcc(1) dust not even settled yet, I like to get some feedback
on gdb(1). AFAICT, this is the deal:
o Both ia64 and amd64 need gdb(1) support before they can become a
tier 1 pl
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 14-Oct-2002 Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The new PT_IO ptrace(2) request doesn't work, since it doesn't release
> a lock. Since PT_IO is similar to PT_READ_D/PT_WRITE_D, I copie
The new PT_IO ptrace(2) request doesn't work, since it doesn't release
a lock. Since PT_IO is similar to PT_READ_D/PT_WRITE_D, I copied the
PROC_UNLOCK from there and inserted in the same location. Patch,
against version 1.103 of sys_process.c, attached.
This patch is also available as:
htt
