I discover that when running Windows 7 in a VirtualBox On FreeBSD 10
(r238968: Wed Aug 1 14:26:40 CEST 2012), VBox is most recent from the
ports, that the VirtualBox eats up 100% CPU time and freezes Windows 7
for more than a minute. For a minute or so, I can work, then, the freeze
occurs again.
I
2012/8/2 Julian Elischer :
> I think that the /dev/entries can (and SHOULD) go away when the hardware
> goes away and even be re-used.
But here's the point. TTYs are used in a different way than other
device nodes. Regular device nodes are simply opened by a set of
independent process (e.g. dd if=
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
to earn a killfile entry. He's now sitting next to Jesus
Monroy, Jr.
it is not a proud from you to talk about who you are blocking.
_
In message
, Ed Schouten writes:
>2012/8/2 Julian Elischer :
TTYs are used *two* ways: As terminals and as comms to the real world.
If a terminal-tty disappears, it should be handled like a HUP would
be, analytically it is the exact same situation as a carrier drop
on a modem. The implementati
On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote participation for
> even a fraction of the events at the dev summit. I don't bother asking
> anymore because year after year my requests were met with any of:
> indifference, hostility, shrugged sh
Has anyone, ever, proposed, thought about, or used a hierarchical feedback
model, where conference participants are grouped into some tree, where one
experienced (or trusted) person in a group would answer simple questions
(coming from other members of the group), and forward advanced questions
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
of that is warranted.
I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-conference lines for remote
people to participate. After I stepp
Hi Robert,
I am using Freebsd 8.2 and facing the Use-after-free issue because of the
possible reference release on ifaddr without it being acquired.
The issue is that ifa remains on the addr list of ifp but it is already
free which leads to the panic in the code trying to traverse through the
ifad
On 08/02/2012 09:20, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman
> wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't.
Yes I do! (So there)
> He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory
> where none of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits,
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
> of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-co
On 08/02/2012 05:54, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote
>> participation for even a fraction of the events at the dev summit.
>> I don't bother asking anymore because year after year my requests
>> were me
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"the right people," even though I was
On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced? If I
> missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you don't tell
> people about isn't really any better than not providing it at all.
It's not widely advertised, because
On 08/02/2012 10:13, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced?
>> If I missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you
>> don't tell people about isn't really any better than not providi
BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
Feel free to join in as a lurker.
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something.
On 08/02/2012 10:34, Doug Barton wrote:
> BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
> like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
>
> Feel free to join in as a lurker.
Sorry, this agenda makes it easier to se
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:28, Doug Barton wrote:
> Welcome to the 21st Century. :) There are widely available audio and
> video conferencing solutions that easily scale into the thousands of
> users, at minimal cost.
>
> Yes, "It takes effort." I get that. I've been part of the effort to
> provide rem
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Those all sound like nice steps forward, thank you for pointing them
> out. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong in this area.
> What would be nice I think would be if these steps were formalized, and
> shared more openly. Having t
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
>
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > but there is
> > certainly no active attempt to exclude people who can't attend.
>
> ... and here is where I need to push back. "No active attempt to exclude
> people" is not the same thing as actively encouraging remote
> participat
On Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:30:16 am Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
> Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
> object
On 08/02/2012 10:37, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> Thank you for volunteering to organise this. It's good to see people with
> both the motivation and experience required to do something well actively
> contributing to the project.
Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected
On 08/02/2012 10:40, Warner Losh wrote:
> One thing to remember about the IETF. There's many vendors that devote
> significant resources to the IETF. While I was at Cisco, for example, I know
> that we provided audio and video bridges to IEFT meetings to facilitate
> remote attendance at the m
On 08/02/2012 05:39, John Baldwin wrote:
> I find this a bit ironic from you given that I've met you in person at
> USENIX ATC which is an order of magnitude more expensive than BSDCan (and
> in fact, one of the reasons the US-based BSDCon died and was effectively
> supplanted by BSDCan was that BS
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Doug Barton wrote:
> Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected core
> team member.
FreeBSD is a volunteer project. Our DevSummits are not run by a commercial
organisation, they are run by volunteers. I am not being paid to organise the
Cambri
On 08/02/2012 11:12, David Chisnall wrote:
> FreeBSD is a volunteer project.
Yeah, I get that. I've been around quite a bit longer than you have, in
case you didn't notice. :)
I understand what you're saying, it's going to take work to change this
mindset, and to provide these resources. If you r
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
> However, my point is that in spite of the fact that it's non-trivial,
> the mindset on this topic needs to change if the dev summits are going
> to continue to be significant focii of both work being done and
> dec
% file /usr/local/bin/ppdpo
/usr/local/bin/ppdpo: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, \
version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), FreeBSD-style,\
for FreeBSD 10.0 (115), stripped
% ldd /usr/local/bin/ppdpo
/usr/local/bin/ppdpo:
/usr/local/bin/ppdpo: signal 11
% gdb741
Libc built today.
Start X with fvwm window manager.
Open xterm and su to root.
1. Use nedit to edit a file and close.
fvwm drops core. If fvwm does not drop core repeat 1 until
she does.
(gdb) bt
#0 0x4841e294 in __jemalloc_arena_mapbits_get (chunk=0x800, pageind=245)
at
/usr/src/lib
On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Libc built today.
> Start X with fvwm window manager.
> Open xterm and su to root.
>
> 1. Use nedit to edit a file and close.
>
> fvwm drops core. If fvwm does not drop core repeat 1 until
> she does.
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x4841e294 in __jemalloc_
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:21:20PM -0700, Jason Evans wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > (gdb) print *ptr
> > Attempt to dereference a generic pointer.
> > (gdb) up 1
> > #5 0x48164b7d in XFree (data=0x80f58e0) at XlibInt.c:1701
> > 1701XlibInt.c: No such file or direc
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:36:35PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:21:20PM -0700, Jason Evans wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > (gdb) print *ptr
> > > Attempt to dereference a generic pointer.
> > > (gdb) up 1
> > > #5 0x48164b7d in XFree (data=
On 8/2/12 4:23 AM, Ed Schouten wrote:
2012/8/2 Julian Elischer :
I think that the /dev/entries can (and SHOULD) go away when the hardware
goes away and even be re-used.
But here's the point. TTYs are used in a different way than other
device nodes. Regular device nodes are simply opened by a se
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>
>> I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:39:54 -0700
Steve Kargl wrote:
> % file /usr/local/bin/ppdpo
> /usr/local/bin/ppdpo: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, \
> version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
> FreeBSD-style,\ for FreeBSD 10.0 (115), stripped
>
> % ldd /usr/local/bin/pp
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:55:36PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:39:54 -0700
> Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> > % file /usr/local/bin/ppdpo
> > /usr/local/bin/ppdpo: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, \
> > version 1 (FreeBSD), dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
> > F
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Hartmann, O.
wrote:
> I discover that when running Windows 7 in a VirtualBox On FreeBSD 10
> (r238968: Wed Aug 1 14:26:40 CEST 2012), VBox is most recent from the
> ports, that the VirtualBox eats up 100% CPU time and freezes Windows 7
> for more than a minute. For
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Hartmann, O.
> wrote:
>> I discover that when running Windows 7 in a VirtualBox On FreeBSD 10
>> (r238968: Wed Aug 1 14:26:40 CEST 2012), VBox is most recent from the
>> ports, that the VirtualBox eats up 100%
39 matches
Mail list logo
