On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 09:57:46AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Heh. I had something a little like that at one point -- it just
> acted as a pass-through, but also logged in the pcap format. I
> thought someone had done modifications to tcpdump to allow it to
> speak to divert sockets, don't kn
Hi Matthey,
This kind of messages belong in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This list
has been opened by the bugmeister for sending PRs which need closing an
the jazz.. ;) It is called the BugBusting Project.
This list was previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please send all stocked close
requests to thi
So, whose palm do I grease to get some PR's taken care of? ;-)
- docs/31265 - Documentation (and adjustment) of cron allow/deny file
formats
Best (IMO, but then, I wrote it ;) patch at end of audit trail.
- docs/35436 - Webpage update; don't push PAO
Patch in PR
- docs/
* Clark C . Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020316 14:34] wrote:
> I looked around for quite a while for a simple program
> to do a binary patch on an iso cdrom image. I was hoping
> that I could use "bvi" or similar binary editor, but it
> wasn't clear how I could get them to do simple string
> repla
I looked around for quite a while for a simple program
to do a binary patch on an iso cdrom image. I was hoping
that I could use "bvi" or similar binary editor, but it
wasn't clear how I could get them to do simple string
replacement. So, I wrote one and am putting it in the
public domain, I hop
Sergey Babkin wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > It got really bogged down when someone pointed out that
> > they were running CPUs with different clock rates in their
> > SMP box, just to see what the net effect would be. THe
>
> As far as I understand, you just physically can't do it:
> t
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> It got really bogged down when someone pointed out that
> they were running CPUs with different clock rates in their
> SMP box, just to see what the net effect would be. THe
As far as I understand, you just physically can't do it:
the P-II CPU initialization depends on
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 09:23 16-3-2002 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > Second, these
> >warnings would be generated during normal operations, as a number of
> >applications attempt to load kernel modules when they need them, including
> >ppp. Generating spurious
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 09:57:46AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Heh. I had something a little like that at one point -- it just acted as a
> pass-through, but also logged in the pcap format. I thought someone had
> done modifications to tcpdump to allow it to speak to divert sockets,
> don't kno
At 09:23 16-3-2002 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Second, these
>warnings would be generated during normal operations, as a number of
>applications attempt to load kernel modules when they need them, including
>ppp. Generating spurious warnings as part of normal system activity isn't
>necessarily
> Alex are you still workin' for a patch?
Yes, I am. But as I write before I am not familiar with this particular
part of GCC at all, so I cannot give any estimates and even promize to
produce a working patch. If some other more knowledgeable person
is feeling like beating me to it, please feel f
okay... seems we are now out of topic... some arguments for a change some to
retain the old custom (and in my opinion bootless stuff). I think later
we'll need a survey for this and volunteers to do the work (if we want to do
the change)...
Alex are you still workin' for a patch?
Jan
> -Ori
> But why does this not happen after i = 32 ? I hardly see any increase in
> memory usage after that.
I think you are backstoring pages that hold the allocated memory bucket
pointers, not the data itself. in the i < 32 you run out of these pages
of pointers to buckets before you hit your data
But why does this not happen after i = 32 ? I hardly see any increase in
memory usage after that.
-Ram
==> mark tinguely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/11:30am/Mar 16, 2002 <==
[> int i = 32;
[>
[> int
[> main(){ while (1) malloc(i); }
[>
[>
[> As long as i is in between 1 and 32, all memory is used
> int i = 32;
>
> int
> main(){ while (1) malloc(i); }
>
>
> As long as i is in between 1 and 32, all memory is used up and all swap is used up,
>and then the process is killed.
>
> Again, when i > 32, all seems well.
dirty at least a byte of the data:
main(){ while (1) { char *p (char *)
I wrote a small program as follows
int i = 32;
int
main(){ while (1) malloc(i); }
As long as i is in between 1 and 32, all memory is used up and all swap is used up,
and then the process is killed.
Again, when i > 32, all seems well.
What could be the problem?
-Ram
To Unsubscribe: send m
Heh. I had something a little like that at one point -- it just acted as a
pass-through, but also logged in the pcap format. I thought someone had
done modifications to tcpdump to allow it to speak to divert sockets,
don't know that it was ever actually committed. Might be in the PR's
still. Wa
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> I've noticed that currently, violations of securelevel are aborted, but not
> typically logged. It seems like in addition to aborting whichever calls are
> in progress, logging an error might be beneficial. I recognize that this
> goes along the same line
18 matches
Mail list logo
