On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 05:09:12 +0200, Lars Schotte wrote:
>
> PF synproxy seems to work now on 12.
> It would be nice to move those changes to 11-stable, because there it
> is still broken. Just saying.
Are you talking about the following changes?
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/20
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:19:11 +0200, Lars Schotte wrote:
>
> I see segfaulting too:
>
> FreeBSD wasp.2km.casa 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #6 r336229: Fri Jul
> 13 01:51:31 CEST 2018
> r...@wasp.2km.casa:/usr/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/GUSTIK amd64
> # service local_unbound restart
>
The failure:
kBuild: Compiling VBoxGuestR0Lib -
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/emulators/virtualbox-ose-additions-nox11/work/VirtualBox-5.2.14/src/VBox/Additions/common/VBoxGuest/lib/VBoxGuestR0LibPhysHeap.cpp
In file included from
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/emulators/virtualbox-ose-additions-nox11/work/VirtualBox-
Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
subject to any code review. The following patch
does two things. First, it works around
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
Second, it removes the pollution of libm with the
polevll.c functions. Those functions are used
only in ld80/e
These changes look perfect to me.
Warner
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:08 AM Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
> subject to any code review. The following patch
> does two things. First, it works around
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
>
> Second,
[The build got to emulators/virtualbox-ose-additions and it also
failed this way. The PAGE_SIZE warning did not occur. More notes
added after the quoted history.]
On 2018-Jul-15, at 7:49 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> The failure:
>
> kBuild: Compiling VBoxGuestR0Lib -
> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/emulator
On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Apparently, the recents additions to libm were not
> subject to any code review. The following patch
> does two things. First, it works around
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8532
>
> Second, it removes the pollution of libm wit
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00:41AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Index: ld80/e_powl.c
> > ===
> > --- ld80/e_powl.c (revision 336304)
> > +++ ld80/e_powl.c (working copy)
> > @
>
> Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
That is not correct. Please stop repeating it. Bruce Evans and John
Baldwin were both looped in.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> > Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
>
> That is not correct. Please stop repe
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
>> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
>> > Unfortunately, the code was not review
On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 11:55 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 11:23 AM K. Macy wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been
> > > copied
> > > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been
> > > committed.
> > > Unfortun
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:21:25AM -0700, K. Macy wrote:
> >
> > Well, actually, the functions in polevll.c should have been copied
> > into ld80/e_powl.c, and polevall.c should never have been committed.
> > Unfortunately, the code was not reviewed for correctness.
>
> That is not correct. Please
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06:47PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>
> On the other hand, what information is there for someone to know that
> Steve should be involved in a review? There is nothing in MAINTAINERS.
> The review was on phab for almost a month, and phab is supposedly the
> preferred way to
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:44:28AM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
>
> In the bug report you cite, Chris Lattner states: "This is actually an
> unspecified feature of C99 (whether it supports the _Imaginary type).
> It is desirable to support this, but not a regression.
>
Chris Lattner is wrong when
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00:41AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 08:06 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > Index: ld80/e_powl.c
>> > ===
>> > --- ld80/e_powl.c (r
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:06:47PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, what information is there for someone to know that
>> Steve should be involved in a review? There is nothing in MAINTAINERS.
>> The review was on phab for alm
I don't think it makes sense for a non-committer to have a lock on anything in
base. However a request for review makes a lot of sense. If a non-committer or
former committer is the SME on a particular subject it's best that they be
consulted even if they don't request it. IMO more input is bett
I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
I'm saying we have history here, and that history, while poorly documented,
wasn't followed. To the extent it is poorly documented, we should fix that.
Warner
On Sun, Jul 15,
I wasn't saying Steve has a lock however in case non-committers might feel they
do, addressing all points in my reply. Not saying anyone feels this way today
but we should consider this in whatever we decide here (considering all
possibilities). IMO adding subject matter experts to MAINTAINERS s
So something like this:
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 51d3688f8b8..3e6584f24a1 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ kqueuejmg Pre-commit review
requested. Documentation Required.
libdpv dteske Pre-commit review requested. Keep i
On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
>
> I'm saying we have history here, and that history, while poorly documented,
> wasn't followed. To the extent it is poorly docu
That'll work too.
---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard.
Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
Also, this old phone only supports top post. Apologies.
Cy Schubert
or
The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
---
-Original Message-
From: Warner Losh
Sent: 15/07/2018 12:26
T
Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>Have you any contact with VMWare so that they might fix the issues
>in thier code, rather than having to put hacks in FreeBSD for these
>issues?
Well, Jim White (who is not in their file system area) submitted a PR on their
system and the response was along the lines of:
S
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:23:06PM -0700, Cy Schubert wrote:
> I wasn't saying Steve has a lock however in case non-committers
> might feel they do, addressing all points in my reply. Not saying
> anyone feels this way today but we should consider this in whatever
> we decide here (considering all
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:00:37PM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
> wrote:
> > On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> >> many mistakes can be avoided by tal
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:00:37PM -0700, Matthew Macy wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
> wrote:
> > On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
> >> many mistakes can be avoided by tal
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
wrote:
> On 07/15/2018 02:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert and
>> many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
>>
>> I'm saying we have history here, and that history, wh
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 01:09:41PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm not saying that he has a lock. I'm saying he's are domain expert
> and many mistakes can be avoided by talking to him.
fwiw, substantially all the work done since at least 2013 is from kargl.
(I am eliding the licensing, Makefile,
On 07/05/18 09:54, I wrote:
> On 07/05/18 09:27, tech-lists wrote:
>> On 03/07/2018 19:47, Michael Butler wrote:
>>> That would've been ..
>>>
>>> Jun 1 09:56:15 toshi kernel: FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #35 r334484: Fri Jun
>>> 1 08:25:58 EDT 2018
>>>
>>> I'm going to build one with SVN r334862 reverted
I wrote:
> (I am going to look and see what the Linux server does for this case.)
I just looked and the Linux 4.17-rc2 kernel NFS server just returns NFS_OK
for the rca_one_fs == TRUE case. I have given a patch that does the same
thing for the FreeBSD server to Andreas and Daniel and think it is ok
31 matches
Mail list logo
