2018-01-02 2:27 GMT+01:00 blubee blubeeme :
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2018-01-01 at 12:36 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 06:52:37AM +, David Chisnall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 1 Jan 2018, at 05:09, Adrian Chadd
> wrote
Does FreeBSD current USB stack support usb >= 2.0 devices?
Testing out the USB devices support I get about 7.2-7.8 megabytes per
second which seems odd.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-curre
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:41 PM, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>
> > On 3 Jan 2018, at 11:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> > Does FreeBSD current USB stack support usb >= 2.0 devices?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > Testing out the USB devices support I get about 7.2-7.8 megabytes per
> > second which seems odd.
>
> On 3 Jan 2018, at 11:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> Does FreeBSD current USB stack support usb >= 2.0 devices?
Absolutely.
> Testing out the USB devices support I get about 7.2-7.8 megabytes per
> second which seems odd.
What sort of test? What sort of device? What sort of port?
What is the
> On 3 Jan 2018, at 11:56, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:41 PM, O'Connor, Daniel wrote:
>
>
> > On 3 Jan 2018, at 11:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
> > Does FreeBSD current USB stack support usb >= 2.0 devices?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > Testing out the USB devices support I get
2018-01-01 11:36 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Belousov :
>> >> On x86, the CPUID instruction leaf 0x1 returns the information in
>> >> %ebx register.
>> >
>> > Hm, weird. Why don't we extend sysctl to include this info?
>
> For the same reason we do not provide a sysctl to add two integers.
I strongly agr
On 01/03/18 13:37, Ed Schouten wrote:
2018-01-01 11:36 GMT+01:00 Konstantin Belousov :
On x86, the CPUID instruction leaf 0x1 returns the information in
%ebx register.
Hm, weird. Why don't we extend sysctl to include this info?
For the same reason we do not provide a sysctl to add two intege
On Jan 2, 2018 19:05, "Warner Losh" wrote:
The register article says the specifics are under embargo still. That would
make it hard for anybody working with Intel to comment publicly on the flaw
and any mitigations that may be underway. It would be unwise to assume that
all the details are out un
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Mark Heily wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2018 19:05, "Warner Losh" wrote:
>
> The register article says the specifics are under embargo still. That would
> make it hard for anybody working with Intel to comment publicly on the flaw
> and any mitigations that may be underway.
Happy new year, and I hope that meltdown and spectre
are not taking too much of everyone's time. That said, the
submission deadline is still January 14th, so please do send in your
status report entries to us!
Thanks,
Ben
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:27:16PM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Dear Fr
10 matches
Mail list logo