On 12/1/11 5:04 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
"you (committers)" any more... :-)
The rea
on 02/12/2011 03:04 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
>>> you (committers)
>>
>> I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
>> "you (committe
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
>> you (committers)
>
> I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
> "you (committers)" any more... :-)
>
The real question is rather whether or not
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up
>> >> vm_map.c:
>> >> http://www.f
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up
> >> vm_map.c:
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
>>
>> What do you think about it?
>
> This one only changes the KBI ? Note
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
>
> What do you think about it?
This one only changes the KBI ? Note that _sx suffix is not reserved.
p
2011/11/20 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>>> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/11
It looks good to me.
Attilio
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
>> > +#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
>> > + vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE, LOCK_LINE)
>>
>> I think you shoul
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> > +#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
> > + vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE, LOCK_LINE)
>
> I think you should put the "\" in the last tab and also, for
> consistency, you may
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> > Please consider:
>> > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
>>
>> This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch now.
> Here is it.
>
> dif
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
> > Please consider:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
>
> This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch now.
Here is it.
diff --git a/sys/vm/vm_page.c b/sys/vm/vm_p
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>>> >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:56:55AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> >>
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> >> >>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>> >> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kb
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
> >> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, somet
On Sunday, November 06, 2011 11:42:04 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov
wrote:
> > > Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
> > > a lot of violations in
2011/11/15 :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other wo
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>>> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
>>> t
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
>> that hints at the function's reason for existing.
>
> Sure. B
on 14/11/2011 02:38 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> you (committers)
I wonder how it would work out if you were made a committer and couldn't say
"you (committers)" any more... :-) I.e. is it possible to change your mindset
from "me (and us) versus you" to just "us"? The lines between commi
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 11/8/11 9:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> [...]
>
>> However, if you want to know, my heart tends to be with BSDs.
>> Unfortunately, it's a sad love-story where your Beloved keeps
>> deceiving you day after day. You want to change sm
On 10/11/2011, at 4:09, Julian Elischer wrote:
> well write a driver for it.. what do you think I'm doing with the driver I'm
> talking about?
> I wrote several bypass network card drivers when I was at cisco/ironport..
> it's not rocket science,
> though it would be nice if we were to come up w
On 11/8/11 9:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer
wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fa
On 11/9/11, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer
>>> wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I
On 11/8/11 5:52 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a
On 11/8/11 5:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe:
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 1
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
>> without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
>> quite a large patch-set, I will not p
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> [cc list trimmed]
>>
>> on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
>>> 2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe :
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Ko
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> [cc list trimmed]
>
> on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> 2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe :
>>> To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
>>> without "action", I did implement what I suggested abov
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
>> without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
>> quite a large patch-set, I will not p
On 11/8/11 10:49 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
quite a large patch-set, I will not post it directly here, however, it
is available on github:
https://github.co
[cc list trimmed]
on 08/11/2011 22:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
> 2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe :
>> To avoid future complaints about the fact that I would be only "talk"
>> without "action", I did implement what I suggested above. As it is
>> quite a large patch-set, I will not post it directly
2011/11/8 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39P
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
>> that hints at the function's
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:47:59AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
> >> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
>> that hints at the function's rea
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> I'm unsure if this replies to your concerns because you just criticize
>> without making a real technical question in this post.
>>
> I made comments on 3 points:
> - using internal
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
> that hints at the function's reason for existing.
Sure. Below is the extraction of only vm_
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
>>> Again, I
On 11/06/2011 06:43, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:00:58PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06
2011/11/7 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
>>> Again, I did not spent time converti
2011/11/7 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>
>> Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
>> Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
>> from
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> > Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
>> > a lot of violations in regard
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
> Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
> from the (potentially) loadable modules to
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:22:51AM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
> > a lot of violations in regard of the namespaces, IMO. The __* namespace
> > is reserved for the
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> Regarding the _vm_page_lock() vs. vm_page_lock_func(), the mutex.h has
> a lot of violations in regard of the namespaces, IMO. The __* namespace
> is reserved for the language implementation, so our freestanding program
> (kernel) ignores th
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 03:00:58PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> >>On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belouso
On 11/05/2011 10:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Agai
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 07:37:48AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >
> > Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
> > Again, I did not spent time convert
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
> Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
> Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
> from the (potentially) loadable modules to the n
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 06:03:39PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Below is the KBI patch after vm_page_bits_t merge is done.
Again, I did not spent time converting all in-tree consumers
from the (potentially) loadable modules to the new KPI until it
is agreed upon.
diff --git a/sys/nfsclient/nfs_b
58 matches
Mail list logo
