Some further thoughts before I doze off:
> > allowed to. This should be controlled by sysctls like
> (placement based
> > on nfs and ffs sysctl placement precedent):
>
> Or even a mount option to procfs :)
After some thought, I think the mount option idea is best. I hadn't
thought of that befo
Hi!
On 09-Sep-99 Andrew Reilly wrote:
> XFMail isn't acceptable, because I've got 130M of mbox mail
> boxes in a deep directory hierarchy, and I'd like to keep them
> that way. The last time I looked at XFMail it insisted on an
> un-nested mh-directory style of mailbox. Is it still the case?
Nope
> > I think the idea (of a procfs ps) was shot down on the
> lists some time
> > ago because ps needs to retain the ability to look at
> the process list
> > in a kernel coredump. IMHO that's a lot of messy kvm
> groveling and
> > associated kernel-to-userland sync dependencies, just to
> cate
On 09-Sep-99 Jason Young wrote:
> > Hack ps and turn off procfs :)
> I would think it more appropriate to adjust procfs' permissions in the
> kernel such that a user couldn't look at processes they don't own,
> i.e., can't cd or look into /proc/$PIDTHEYDONTOWN. Adding group-read
> for wheel or
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org]on Behalf Of
> Daniel O'Connor
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:05 PM
> To: Gustavo V G C Rios
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; ch...@calldei.com
> Subject: Re: CS Project
>
Hi all,
Sort of off topic, though thought it might bring about some positive
response and ideas here...
I've successfully avoided a Cisco solution (though not the ADC kentrox
one =( ) recently with the Sangoma Wanpipe using FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE
(cvsupped last week).
Time permitting,
On 09-Sep-99 Jason Young wrote:
> After some thought, I think the mount option idea is best. I hadn't
> thought of that before. One might want to apply different procfs
> security policies to different mounts of procfs, especially in a
> jail() situation. Good call.
Yeah, you'd have to make
Some further thoughts before I doze off:
> > allowed to. This should be controlled by sysctls like
> (placement based
> > on nfs and ffs sysctl placement precedent):
>
> Or even a mount option to procfs :)
After some thought, I think the mount option idea is best. I hadn't
thought of that bef
Hi!
On 09-Sep-99 Andrew Reilly wrote:
> XFMail isn't acceptable, because I've got 130M of mbox mail
> boxes in a deep directory hierarchy, and I'd like to keep them
> that way. The last time I looked at XFMail it insisted on an
> un-nested mh-directory style of mailbox. Is it still the case?
Nop
Dmitrij Tejblum wrote:
>
> > Another issue when sigset_t changes is the version numbers of shared
> > libraries. Since libc and libc_r have changed on the interface level, they
> > need a version bump.
>
> I suggest to try to avoid the version bump. NetBSD-like way to do it:
> Give new implementa
> > I think the idea (of a procfs ps) was shot down on the
> lists some time
> > ago because ps needs to retain the ability to look at
> the process list
> > in a kernel coredump. IMHO that's a lot of messy kvm
> groveling and
> > associated kernel-to-userland sync dependencies, just to
> cat
On 09-Sep-99 Jason Young wrote:
> > Hack ps and turn off procfs :)
> I would think it more appropriate to adjust procfs' permissions in the
> kernel such that a user couldn't look at processes they don't own,
> i.e., can't cd or look into /proc/$PIDTHEYDONTOWN. Adding group-read
> for wheel o
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Daniel O'Connor
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:05 PM
> To: Gustavo V G C Rios
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: CS Project
>
>
>
> On 09-Sep-99 Gustavo V G C Rios wro
Hi all,
Sort of off topic, though thought it might bring about some positive
response and ideas here...
I've successfully avoided a Cisco solution (though not the ADC kentrox
one =( ) recently with the Sangoma Wanpipe using FreeBSD 3.2-STABLE
(cvsupped last week).
Time permitting,
Hi Nate,
Somewhere , theres got to be a nice little email place where Unix people can
talk about
usability and ease of software.
Have Fun Guys
--
Amancio Hasty
ha...@rah.star-gate.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the
Dmitrij Tejblum wrote:
>
> > Another issue when sigset_t changes is the version numbers of shared
> > libraries. Since libc and libc_r have changed on the interface level, they
> > need a version bump.
>
> I suggest to try to avoid the version bump. NetBSD-like way to do it:
> Give new implement
Hi Nate,
Somewhere , theres got to be a nice little email place where Unix people can talk about
usability and ease of software.
Have Fun Guys
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of th
> Nate: it's a while since I looked at VM on XEmacs. I found its
> layout cluttered and it's key sequences awkward. How configurable
> is it, really? Do you use it as it comes out of the box?
Really configurable, and no, I don't use it in an out-of-the-box
configuration.
I remap many of the ke
thank for the pointers to the mailing list... very enlightening.
I am going to try to write up an API for it this weekend with
some cooperation with others. I will then give it a first pass
around the freebsd-hackers and linux-kernl mailing lists. There
are a few unanswered questions as to what a
> Nate: it's a while since I looked at VM on XEmacs. I found its
> layout cluttered and it's key sequences awkward. How configurable
> is it, really? Do you use it as it comes out of the box?
Really configurable, and no, I don't use it in an out-of-the-box
configuration.
I remap many of the k
Hi, I write patch for joy.c so that it recognize CS4235 Game port by PnP.
API do work,but hardware seems to be uninitialized.
(Read returns only 0x8000)
Are there any person who review this?
To use PnP Interface,
write simply
device joy0
and add your GAME port ID to
joy_ids[];
Takanori Wat
thank for the pointers to the mailing list... very enlightening.
I am going to try to write up an API for it this weekend with
some cooperation with others. I will then give it a first pass
around the freebsd-hackers and linux-kernl mailing lists. There
are a few unanswered questions as to what
On Sep 09, 1999 at 06:49:46PM -0700, Jayson Nordwick wrote:
> >Yes. I don't particularly like some of the things in the paper,
> >although it does have several good concepts. I have an implementation
> >that does exactly this, and have a line on two other implementations
> >that do the same thing
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> Dear gentleman,
>
> i am a computer science student, and this semester i had to began my
> project to get graduated. After looking for some interesting topics on
> many sources, one rised up:
> Privacity on Shared Environments.
>
> My ideia is to a
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Anthony Rubin wrote:
> I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for
> suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things
> around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few
> problems with 3.3-RC (includi
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 05:43:17PM -0700, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> > 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
>
> On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
> (currently I am using exmh) :
There aren't any. :-) (depends on your value of "good")
> 1. user friend
On 09-Sep-99 Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> > I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
>
> would not be (there was a mistaken in the sentece above, it was
> in lack of "not" )
>
> > would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this current scen
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
> would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this current scenario.
>
> do you understand now, what i meant?
>
> Linux already have such a facility!
I don't believe such a faci
Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
>
> After changes made by me:
>
>
> I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
would not be (there was a mistaken in the sentece above, it was
in lack of "not" )
> would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this curre
Hi, I write patch for joy.c so that it recognize CS4235 Game port by PnP.
API do work,but hardware seems to be uninitialized.
(Read returns only 0x8000)
Are there any person who review this?
To use PnP Interface,
write simply
device joy0
and add your GAME port ID to
joy_ids[];
Takanori Wa
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> > Dear gentleman,
>
> > One clear example:
> > No user(but only that ones previous allowed to) should be able to see
> > other users process. This facility have to be done at kernel level,
> > (that's what i think).
>
>
>Yes. I don't particularly like some of the things in the paper,
>although it does have several good concepts. I have an implementation
>that does exactly this, and have a line on two other implementations
>that do the same thing (but in a different fashion). Unfortunately,
>all of these are so
> From: Jayson Nordwick
> Date: 1999-09-08 17:38:56 -0700
> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: message queues for I/O (usenix paper)
> Content-id: <66138.93683747...@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu>
> Delivered-to: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
>
> There is alot of talk going on
I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for
suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things
around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few
problems with 3.3-RC (including determining what RC means) and this makes it
har
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> Dear gentleman,
> One clear example:
> No user(but only that ones previous allowed to) should be able to see
> other users process. This facility have to be done at kernel level,
> (that's what i think).
Define "see". Access the memory? See t
> How about xf and use procmail for filtering?
>
Tnks I will give xf a try and will look around a bit more . If don't
find anything real neat I will probably roll out my own.
Tnks Again!
--
Amancio Hasty
ha...@rah.star-gate.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
How about xf and use procmail for filtering?
--
Jim Durham
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sep 09, 1999 at 06:49:46PM -0700, Jayson Nordwick wrote:
> >Yes. I don't particularly like some of the things in the paper,
> >although it does have several good concepts. I have an implementation
> >that does exactly this, and have a line on two other implementations
> >that do the same thin
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> Dear gentleman,
>
> i am a computer science student, and this semester i had to began my
> project to get graduated. After looking for some interesting topics on
> many sources, one rised up:
> Privacity on Shared Environments.
>
> My ideia is to
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Anthony Rubin wrote:
> I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for
> suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things
> around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few
> problems with 3.3-RC (includ
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 05:43:17PM -0700, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> > 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
>
> On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
> (currently I am using exmh) :
There aren't any. :-) (depends on your value of "good")
> 1. user frien
> > 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
>
> On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
> (currently I am using exmh) :
>
> 1. user friendly
> 2. filtering capability
> 3. thread topic support
XEmacs + VM works very well for me, but Emacsen have a fairly la
On 09-Sep-99 Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> > I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
>
> would not be (there was a mistaken in the sentece above, it was
> in lack of "not" )
>
> > would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this current sce
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
> would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this current scenario.
>
> do you understand now, what i meant?
>
> Linux already have such a facility!
I don't believe such a fac
Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
>
> After changes made by me:
>
>
> I would be able to see any other proccess which i am not the owner, top
would not be (there was a mistaken in the sentece above, it was
in lack of "not" )
> would indicated, only 8 proccess, for this curr
In article
you write:
>There is alot of talk going on over at the linux-kernel mailing list
>about implementing synchronous messaging for I/O. They are talking about
>a paper that was presented at USENIX:
>
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~gaurav/papers/usenix99.ps
>
>The general idea is that select(
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> > Dear gentleman,
>
> > One clear example:
> > No user(but only that ones previous allowed to) should be able to see
> > other users process. This facility have to be done at kernel level,
> > (that's what i think).
>
>
Dear gentleman,
i am a computer science student, and this semester i had to began my
project to get graduated. After looking for some interesting topics on
many sources, one rised up:
Privacity on Shared Environments.
My ideia is to add system facilities to improve privacity for users on
shared e
>Yes. I don't particularly like some of the things in the paper,
>although it does have several good concepts. I have an implementation
>that does exactly this, and have a line on two other implementations
>that do the same thing (but in a different fashion). Unfortunately,
>all of these are s
> From: Jayson Nordwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 1999-09-08 17:38:56 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: message queues for I/O (usenix paper)
> Content-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
>
> There is alot of talk going on over at the linux-kern
I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for
suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things
around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few
problems with 3.3-RC (including determining what RC means) and this makes it
ha
> 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
(currently I am using exmh) :
1. user friendly
2. filtering capability
3. thread topic support
Kind of like Netscape's mail reader however I hate to bring up
netscape to just
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Gustavo V G C Rios wrote:
> Dear gentleman,
> One clear example:
> No user(but only that ones previous allowed to) should be able to see
> other users process. This facility have to be done at kernel level,
> (that's what i think).
Define "see". Access the memory? See
There is alot of talk going on over at the linux-kernel mailing list
about implementing synchronous messaging for I/O. They are talking about
a paper that was presented at USENIX:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~gaurav/papers/usenix99.ps
The general idea is that select() and poll() fall over with larg
> > Nice Idea however wrong operating system. The losers should
> > have done it for FreeBSD instead of linux.
> 2. Irrelevant (what gets done for Linux by XFree86 et all gets to FreeBSD
>pretty quickly)
What gets done by XFree86 is not relevant . What is relevant in the context
of developi
> How about xf and use procmail for filtering?
>
Tnks I will give xf a try and will look around a bit more . If don't
find anything real neat I will probably roll out my own.
Tnks Again!
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "un
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Kip Macy wrote:
> You need to detach from your current process and attach to the spawned
> process. It might make it easier to attach in a timely fashion if you put
> a 3 second sleep in right after the fork. This would all be easiest using
> something like DDD where DDD will t
> Nice Idea however wrong operating system. The losers should
> have done it for FreeBSD instead of linux.
1. Unconstructive (losers?)
2. Irrelevant (what gets done for Linux by XFree86 et all gets to FreeBSD
pretty quickly)
3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
- Jor
How about xf and use procmail for filtering?
--
Jim Durham
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> > 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
>
> On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
> (currently I am using exmh) :
>
> 1. user friendly
> 2. filtering capability
> 3. thread topic support
XEmacs + VM works very well for me, but Emacsen have a fairly l
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>There is alot of talk going on over at the linux-kernel mailing list
>about implementing synchronous messaging for I/O. They are talking about
>a paper that was presented at USENIX:
>
> http://www.cs.rice.edu/~gaurav/papers/usenix99.ps
>
>The general i
Dear gentleman,
i am a computer science student, and this semester i had to began my
project to get graduated. After looking for some interesting topics on
many sources, one rised up:
Privacity on Shared Environments.
My ideia is to add system facilities to improve privacity for users on
shared
> 3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
On a different topic, does anyone know of a good X mailer
(currently I am using exmh) :
1. user friendly
2. filtering capability
3. thread topic support
Kind of like Netscape's mail reader however I hate to bring up
netscape to jus
There is alot of talk going on over at the linux-kernel mailing list
about implementing synchronous messaging for I/O. They are talking about
a paper that was presented at USENIX:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~gaurav/papers/usenix99.ps
The general idea is that select() and poll() fall over with lar
> > Nice Idea however wrong operating system. The losers should
> > have done it for FreeBSD instead of linux.
> 2. Irrelevant (what gets done for Linux by XFree86 et all gets to FreeBSD
>pretty quickly)
What gets done by XFree86 is not relevant . What is relevant in the context
of develop
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Kip Macy wrote:
> You need to detach from your current process and attach to the spawned
> process. It might make it easier to attach in a timely fashion if you put
> a 3 second sleep in right after the fork. This would all be easiest using
> something like DDD where DDD will
> Nice Idea however wrong operating system. The losers should
> have done it for FreeBSD instead of linux.
1. Unconstructive (losers?)
2. Irrelevant (what gets done for Linux by XFree86 et all gets to FreeBSD
pretty quickly)
3. Needlessly cross-posted (watch your cc lines, loser! :).
- Jo
Quickly going back to this issue of making sio.c work with PCI uarts. If any
developer would like to step forward who's willing to make this work for us
in the next few days, I'm willing to pay for this.
We've had a deadline spring up, which is making me move on to other things.
If anyone who ca
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Matt Thomas wrote:
> LANCE. It's supported by the DEPCA attachment (though as ISA). Very
> nice card. It has 128KB of local RAM (which can be moved to almost any
> where in phyical memory). The only real botch is that the IRQ is a write
> only register so you need to read th
At 01:41 PM 9/8/99 , Jason Thorpe wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:17:52 +0200 (CEST)
> Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
>
>I'm not sure what a DE-422 had on it... Matt?
LANCE. It's supported by the DEPCA attachment (though as ISA). Very
You need to detach from your current process and attach to the spawned
process. It might make it easier to attach in a timely fashion if you put
a 3 second sleep in right after the fork. This would all be easiest using
something like DDD where DDD will tell you what other processes are
running with
Quickly going back to this issue of making sio.c work with PCI uarts. If any
developer would like to step forward who's willing to make this work for us
in the next few days, I'm willing to pay for this.
We've had a deadline spring up, which is making me move on to other things.
If anyone who c
I am using gdb 4.18 on FreeBSD-current. The program being debugged
consists of two small files: test1.c and test2.c. The main() in test1.c
has a call to fork() and for the child process case, it will call a
routine, say test(), in test2.c.
I use "set follow-fork-mode child", "break fork", "ste
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Matt Thomas wrote:
> LANCE. It's supported by the DEPCA attachment (though as ISA). Very
> nice card. It has 128KB of local RAM (which can be moved to almost any
> where in phyical memory). The only real botch is that the IRQ is a write
> only register so you need to read t
At 01:41 PM 9/8/99 , Jason Thorpe wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:17:52 +0200 (CEST)
> Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
>
>I'm not sure what a DE-422 had on it... Matt?
LANCE. It's supported by the DEPCA attachment (t
You need to detach from your current process and attach to the spawned
process. It might make it easier to attach in a timely fashion if you put
a 3 second sleep in right after the fork. This would all be easiest using
something like DDD where DDD will tell you what other processes are
running wit
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:17:52 +0200 (CEST)
Wilko Bulte wrote:
> There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
I'm not sure what a DE-422 had on it... Matt?
> Do you have/want one? I could try to get you one. EISA is dead of course,
> but older machines tend to have EISA s
I am using gdb 4.18 on FreeBSD-current. The program being debugged
consists of two small files: test1.c and test2.c. The main() in test1.c
has a call to fork() and for the child process case, it will call a
routine, say test(), in test2.c.
I use "set follow-fork-mode child", "break fork", "st
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
>
> Do you have/want one? I could try to get you one. EISA is dead of course,
> but older machines tend to have EISA slots to spare, and PCI in short
> supply.
I'd love to find an EISA based
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Jason Thorpe
had to walk into mine and say:
> > However, the main problem is keeping the chip from zapping memory that it
> > doesn't own. Normally I use mbuf cluster buffers in the receive ring, but
> > I would only tell the chip that t
As Brian F. Feldman wrote ...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > Wilko (confused...)
>
> No, I already committed the change to comment it out in -STABLE. I will
> investigate further, but I will definitely not have it in by -RELEASE time.
OK, clear. I was just worried it would silent
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:17:52 +0200 (CEST)
Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
I'm not sure what a DE-422 had on it... Matt?
> Do you have/want one? I could try to get you one. EISA is dead of course,
> but older machines
>It seemmed to work fine for us too, but if there is a possibility
>of some problem it's probably worth working around "properly". It
>only takes about 4 lines of code. (Unless someone can say this
>is definitely harmless in the SMP case)
Ok, here's the proper fix. Turns out that this 4xPPro box
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> There was also an DE-422 EISA card. Dunno if they are different.
>
> Do you have/want one? I could try to get you one. EISA is dead of course,
> but older machines tend to have EISA slots to spare, and PCI in short
> supply.
I'd love to find an EISA based
> In article <199909081736.kaa04...@dingo.cdrom.com>, you say...
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I last night I have upgraded a system to the latest stable, and have
> >> already received two of these panics:
> >
> >Do you have APM enabled on this system, even just in the BIOS?
>
> If enabling 'device ap
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Jason Thorpe
had to walk into mine and say:
> > However, the main problem is keeping the chip from zapping memory that it
> > doesn't own. Normally I use mbuf cluster buffers in the receive ring, but
> > I would only tell the chip that
We've had a group (including representatives from LSB, Mesa, Metro
Link, NVIDIA, PTC, Precision Insight, SGI, XFree86, and Xi Graphics)
working on a proposal for standardizing X11 OpenGL/Mesa ABI and SDK
issues on Linux. The purpose is to allow applications to build against
any implementation f
As Brian F. Feldman wrote ...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>
> > Wilko (confused...)
>
> No, I already committed the change to comment it out in -STABLE. I will
> investigate further, but I will definitely not have it in by -RELEASE time.
OK, clear. I was just worried it would silen
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
Bill Paul wrote:
> Well, yes, but I made some assumptions in order to do it. The assumption
> is that whatever the current speed setting is now, the link partner's
> speed setting is exactly opposite. So if I detect the condition, I first
> toggle the
In article <199909081736.kaa04...@dingo.cdrom.com>, you say...
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I last night I have upgraded a system to the latest stable, and have
>> already received two of these panics:
>
>Do you have APM enabled on this system, even just in the BIOS?
>
If enabling 'device apm...' with SMP is
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:46:18PM -0400, David Gilbert wrote:
> So... I lost my partition table. I'm willing to spend a little time
> on this. Is there a byte sequence that I might recognise in a
> superblock or at the start of a partition? I know this isn't an easy
> task, but man 5 fs leads m
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:46:18PM -0400, David Gilbert wrote:
> So... I lost my partition table. I'm willing to spend a little time
> on this. Is there a byte sequence that I might recognise in a
> superblock or at the start of a partition? I know this isn't an easy
> task, but man 5 fs leads m
In message <199909081811.laa88...@apollo.backplane.com> Matthew Dillon writes:
: It is best, of course, to run fsck only on filesystems that have not
: been mounted but this cannot be done for the root filesystem for obvious
: reasons, hence the read-only mount + fsck + remount R/W.
Ba
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:46:18PM -0400, David Gilbert wrote:
> So... I lost my partition table. I'm willing to spend a little time
> on this. Is there a byte sequence that I might recognise in a
> superblock or at the start of a partition? I know this isn't an easy
> task, but man 5 fs leads m
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, I wrote:
> Yesterday I cvsup'ed RELENG_3 and now SMP doesn't work anymore.
> Halfway through /etc/rc some severe memory corruption seems to occur
> as all new processes core dumps immediately on signal 11. Finally the
> machine locks up and the reset button it the only way out.
>It seemmed to work fine for us too, but if there is a possibility
>of some problem it's probably worth working around "properly". It
>only takes about 4 lines of code. (Unless someone can say this
>is definitely harmless in the SMP case)
Ok, here's the proper fix. Turns out that this 4xPPro box
> Another issue when sigset_t changes is the version numbers of shared
> libraries. Since libc and libc_r have changed on the interface level, they
> need a version bump.
I suggest to try to avoid the version bump. NetBSD-like way to do it:
Give new implementations another names in object files,
> Another issue when sigset_t changes is the version numbers of shared
> libraries. Since libc and libc_r have changed on the interface level, they
> need a version bump. I assume that all others automaticly also need a
> version bump then. Am I correct in this assumption?
Libc_r already had a ver
:> Does fsck have to run on a MOUNTED filesystem? If so, your answer makes
:> sense to me: if fsck modifies the on-disk copy of the superblock, it does
:> not have to unmount and then remount the filesystem, it only need to
:> reload the superlock for disk.
:
:The root filesystem is mounted when
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
>
> > > The flag MNT_RELOAD is not documented in mount manpages. From the source
> > > code, I find that it is always used along with MNT_UPDATE which can be
> > > speficied by user (-u option). Can anyone explai
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
