On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:54:53PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> Yelling at people won't solve the problem, nor will trying to hold the
> project to ransom. These are things that you need to take into
> consideration.
You can take over Gcc and Binutils maintenance at any time. I doubt you or
any k
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010713 07:00] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:49:25 +0900,
> Seigo Tanimura said:
>
> Alfred> Certain operations, such as:
> Alfred> kq = (struct kqueue *)fp->f_data;
> Alfred> should not really require that the file be locked, it's implicitly frozen
> Alf
On 11-Jul-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:20:44 -0500,
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Alfred> I'm also quite sure that you can't call the ktrace functions with
> Alfred> any mutexes held so the code is doing to need some help, basically
> Alfred> the trick in
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:49:25 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura said:
Alfred> Certain operations, such as:
Alfred> kq = (struct kqueue *)fp->f_data;
Alfred> should not really require that the file be locked, it's implicitly frozen
Alfred> at creation time (i think)
Seigo> Yes.
Only one exception beats of
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:25:04 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> This is just about completely file locking related,
Alfred> however I do have a question about PGRP locking, in
Alfred> a certain part you may have to lock two pgrps, how do you
Alfred> deal with deadlock?
L
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
> The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
>
> The discussion of ktrace(2) problem does not cover the solution of
> BSD/OS, so it needs updating.
Here's some more commentary and a pointer to some work done.
This
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:44:44 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> * Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010712 01:42] wrote:
>> * Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
>> >
>> > The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
>> >
>>
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
>
> The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
>
> The discussion of ktrace(2) problem does not cover the solution of
> BSD/OS, so it needs updating.
Right now I'm only reviewing the file part and
I'm only up to '
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010712 01:45] wrote:
> * Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010712 01:42] wrote:
> > * Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
> > >
> > > The discussion of kt
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010712 01:42] wrote:
> * Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
> >
> > The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
> >
> > The discussion of ktrace(2) problem does not cover the solution of
> > BSD/OS, so it needs up
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 19:08] wrote:
>
> The patch and the results of build test are now on the web page.
>
> The discussion of ktrace(2) problem does not cover the solution of
> BSD/OS, so it needs updating.
I'm just reviewing the file stuff, I have a number of updates ma
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:03:40 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura said:
>>> >> I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
>>> >> wait for me to finish, but it seems like no one has stepped forward
>>> >> to review this. I'd like to see it committed, so either go ahead
>>> >> or wait
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:44:55 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> I'm also quite sure that you can't call the ktrace functions with
Alfred> any mutexes held so the code is doing to need some help, basically
Alfred> the trick in trapsig() and postsig() is to generate the ktr
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010711 01:39] wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:44:21 +0900,
> Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Alfred> I'm also quite sure that you can't call the ktrace functions with
> Alfred> any mutexes held so the code is doing to need some help, basically
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:44:21 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> I'm also quite sure that you can't call the ktrace functions with
Alfred> any mutexes held so the code is doing to need some help, basically
Alfred> the trick in trapsig() and postsig() is to generate the ktrac
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:20:44 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> I'm also quite sure that you can't call the ktrace functions with
Alfred> any mutexes held so the code is doing to need some help, basically
Alfred> the trick in trapsig() and postsig() is to generate the ktra
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:53:47 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Alfred> * Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010710 03:46] wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:20:44 -0500,
>> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >> I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010710 03:46] wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:20:44 -0500,
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
> >> wait for me to finish, but it seems like no one has stepped forward
> >> t
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:20:44 -0500,
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
>> wait for me to finish, but it seems like no one has stepped forward
>> to review this. I'd like to see it committed, so either go ahead
>> or
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010707 16:43] wrote:
> * Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 03:13] wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:04:31 +0900,
> > Seigo Tanimura said:
> >
> > Seigo> The results of build test with the latest patch are now at:
> >
> > Seigo> http://people.Fr
> > David - this conversation is not productive, and you're not helping
> > anyone, including yourself, going off like this.
>
> Care to address Alfred's going off also?
Since it's your incessant carping that's the source of this shameful
little flamwar, no.
> > Please tone it down, ok?
>
>
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:44:45PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> > > Finally, if you're so damn concerned about your precious alpha I
> > > expect you or at least ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT ALPHA TO ASSIST IN
> > > TESTING THESE DIFFS.
> >
> > HOW THE FSCK AM I TO TEST THEM WHEN I CANNOT EVEN GET TO SIN
> > Finally, if you're so damn concerned about your precious alpha I
> > expect you or at least ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT ALPHA TO ASSIST IN
> > TESTING THESE DIFFS.
>
> HOW THE FSCK AM I TO TEST THEM WHEN I CANNOT EVEN GET TO SINGLE USER??
By testing them before they're committed, obviously.
Davi
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 08:13:57PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I'm not interested in wasting time tracking down bugs for your
> arch.
*My* arch?? _OUR_ arches.
> Anyhow, the simple fact is that if you're unable to cope with some
> instability for a short amount of time you shouldn't be ru
* David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010707 20:01] wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 07:11:28PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010707 18:06] wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:42:49PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > > I'm going to be giving this co
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 07:11:28PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010707 18:06] wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:42:49PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
> > > wait for me to finish,
* David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010707 18:06] wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:42:49PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
> > wait for me to finish, but it seems like no one has stepped forward
> > to review this. I'd lik
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:42:49PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> I'm going to be giving this code some testing, not that you have to
> wait for me to finish, but it seems like no one has stepped forward
> to review this. I'd like to see it committed, so either go ahead
> or wait for my review
* Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 03:13] wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:04:31 +0900,
> Seigo Tanimura said:
>
> Seigo> The results of build test with the latest patch are now at:
>
> Seigo> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/pg_fd/
>
> Seigo> As it is likely to take quite a whil
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:04:31 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura said:
Seigo> The results of build test with the latest patch are now at:
Seigo> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/pg_fd/
Seigo> As it is likely to take quite a while to fix alpha, I am going to
Seigo> update the patch every few days.
The
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:48:30 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura said:
David> It would also be nice to get a timeline on the commit schedule for this.
>>> Test of 2 weeks should be enough, followed by commit in 15 June.
David> I request that this be on hold until we actually get -current Alphas
David> usab
On Thu, 31 May 2001 16:31:21 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura said:
Seigo> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
Seigo> for testing.
Although the patch is still under test, a new task proposal comes to
my mind.
A new task: lock underlying objects of struct file, na
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:48:30PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
> >> Test of 2 weeks should be enough, followed by commit in 15 June.
>
> David> I request that this be on hold until we actually get -current Alphas
> David> usable again.
>
> OK, then we can test on pc98 and ia64 to wait for that.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:52:23 -0700,
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
David> On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:28:57PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
David> It would also be nice to get a timeline on the commit schedule for this.
>> Test of 2 weeks should be enough, followed by commit in 15 June.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:28:57PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
> David> It would also be nice to get a timeline on the commit schedule for this.
> Test of 2 weeks should be enough, followed by commit in 15 June.
I request that this be on hold until we actually get -current Alphas
usable again.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 05:44:17 -0700,
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
David> Committers do not need Alpha users to verify that a patch compiles,
David> Beast.freebsd.org can be used for that. Testing on a running system is
David> of course a different matter.
>>
>> I will test building
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:28:57PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
> David> Committers do not need Alpha users to verify that a patch compiles,
> David> Beast.freebsd.org can be used for that. Testing on a running system is
> David> of course a different matter.
>
> I will test building a GENERIC
On Thu, 31 May 2001 13:01:56 -0700,
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
David> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 12:54:26PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
>> >> for testing
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:46:00PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> It doesn't hurt to help distribute the load some, though. Requiring
> each person who makes a change to compile it on every possible arch is
> not something that will scale as more and more archs are added. If a
> committer can get
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:46:00PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> It doesn't hurt to help distribute the load some, though. Requiring
> each person who makes a change to compile it on every possible arch is
> not something that will scale as more and more archs are added.
It isn't that hard to p
On 31-May-01 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 12:54:26PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
>> >> for testing.
>> >>
>> >> The patch is at
>> >>
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 12:54:26PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
> >> for testing.
> >>
> >> The patch is at
> >>
> >> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/fd
On 31-May-01 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:31:21PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
>> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
>> for testing.
>>
>> The patch is at
>>
>> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanim
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:31:21PM +0900, Seigo Tanimura wrote:
> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
> for testing.
>
> The patch is at
>
> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/fd_pgrp.diff.gz
Compiled on Alpha?
--
-- David ([EMA
On Thu, 31 May 2001 16:31:21 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Seigo> Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
Seigo> for testing.
Seigo> The patch is at
Seigo> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/fd_pgrp.diff.gz
WARNING: r
Lock of struct filedesc, file, pgrp, session and sigio is now ready
for testing.
The patch is at
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/fd_pgrp.diff.gz
Below is the brief description of locking.
1. struct filedesc and struct file
- fd_mtx protects struct filedesc.
- f_mtx protects
46 matches
Mail list logo
