On Friday, December 10, 2010 8:13:01 pm Tom Uffner wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >> pci0: at device 16.0 (no driver attached)
> >> pci0: at device 16.1 (no driver attached)
> >> pci0: at device 16.2 (no driver attached)
> >> pci0: at device 16.3 (no driver attached)
> >
> > Can you get pcic
John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, December 10, 2010 8:13:01 pm Tom Uffner wrote:
no...@pci0:0:16:0: class=0x0c0300 card=0x80ed1043 chip=0x30381106
rev=0x81 hdr=0x00
vendor = 'VIA Technologies, Inc.'
device = 'VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (All VIA Chipsets)'
cla
On Monday, December 13, 2010 11:30:00 am Tom Uffner wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, December 10, 2010 8:13:01 pm Tom Uffner wrote:
>
> >> no...@pci0:0:16:0: class=0x0c0300 card=0x80ed1043 chip=0x30381106
> >> rev=0x81 hdr=0x00
> >> vendor = 'VIA Technologies, Inc.'
> >>
Hi.
The new patchset is ready for testing:
http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/zfs_20101212.patch.bz2
When applying the patch be sure to use correct options for patch(1)!:
# cd /usr/src
# fetch http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/zfs_20101212.patch.bz2
# bz
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:45:56PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The new patchset is ready for testing:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/zfs_20101212.patch.bz2
>
> When applying the patch be sure to use correct options for patch(1)!:
>
> # cd /usr/src
>
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:45:56PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The new patchset is ready for testing:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/zfs_20101212.patch.bz2
You can also download the whole source tree already patched from here:
http://people.freebsd.org/
Alexander Best wrote:
>any thoughts on this patch? it adds files which will be removed when
>WITHOUT_SYSCONS is set. also it makes sure sysinstall(8) and sade(8) only get
>installed when WITHOUT_SYSINSTALL wasn't defined and also that any related
>executables and manual pages get removed if in fac
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:31PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
> What's the expected behaviour for the sendfile changes as
> sendfile is one of the problems we have here with the
> double memory allocation required for it under ZFS compared
> to UFS. Does this patch address that?
No. The patch d
