The other day, I had a panic with my 5.1-RELEASE kernel when I
removed my Cardbus NIC (3Com 3c575B Fast Etherlink XL, using the
xl driver.) The traceback indicated a pretty uninteresting race
between a timeout routine (xl_stats_update) and the card being
detached. xl_stats_update was being called
On Wednesday, 18 June 2003 at 2:38:34 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>> Yes, it reminded me of that thread, but wkt was actually referring to
>> System III, not 32V.
>
> I am also pretty certain that it was widely stated at the time
> that the UCB's license was the older
Max Okumoto wrote:
I am still doing work on it... but my normal job has been
getting in the way for a while.
Max
I'm sorry Max. I guess I should have used a bit more diplomacy. But the
way I see it, libh was dead even before you got in, the same w
Well, yes.. I'm sorry too. But I feel that libh's pseudo-existence is
more a nuisance right now. The architecture of libh is a bit too big and
has this exact problem of putting its hands in too many pieces (as some
people have pointed out before). It's really hard to "get into" libh,
even for p
I want to be able to send IOCTL commands to standard devices (fdd,cdrom,kbd) from my
kernel driver. Whereas I can do reads and writes using the vn_rdwr commands, how do I
do IOCTLS? VOP_IOCTL keeps giving me EINVAL when I try to send the DIOCGDINFO IOCTL.
My code is basically
NDINIT(&_VdFloppyN
I am still doing work on it... but my normal job has been
getting in the way for a while.
Max
Jordan K Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry to hear you say that. It was probably the only effort (which
> attempted to solve the larger set of
Have a look at http://www.freebsd.org/projects/libh.html
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Kenneth Culver wrote:
The principal problem with libh is too many chiefs and not enough
indians. Poor Alex and Max have done a HUGE amount of work on the
system but it's large enough in scope that
Nevermind, I found it:
http://rtp1.slowblink.com/~libh/
Thanks.
Ken
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> The principal problem with libh is too many chiefs and not enough
> indians. Poor Alex and Max have done a HUGE amount of work on the
> system but it's large enough in scope that 2 people cannot hope to do it
> all by themselves, particularly when there's no relief shift to take
> things over wh
Sorry to hear you say that. It was probably the only effort (which
attempted to solve the larger set of issues and not simply peck away at
the problem piecemeal) to ever have any code associated with it.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 08:40 AM, The Anarcat wrote:
libh's dead, folks. It's been
The principal problem with libh is too many chiefs and not enough
indians. Poor Alex and Max have done a HUGE amount of work on the
system but it's large enough in scope that 2 people cannot hope to do
it all by themselves, particularly when there's no relief shift to take
things over when the
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 03:01 AM, Paul Robinson wrote:
I hate sysinstall. I had some spare time and was
going to start on something when Jordan piped up with libh. I'm not
sure if
libh was the right way to go anyway - it just prettied up sysinstall
and
made it more confusing to a novice
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:08:37PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
>
> Dmitry Sivachenko writes:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Is there any reason why struct ipc_perm is not protected by #ifdef _KERNEL
> > in ipc.h? Is it supposed to be used from userland?
> >
>
> It's needed by ipcs.
>
Ah, I see. It is
and amen to anarcat's words :)
--
+---+
| Samy Al Bahra | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+---+
Arabeyes.org Kerneled.com FreeBSD.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailm
Dmitry Sivachenko writes:
> Hello!
>
> Is there any reason why struct ipc_perm is not protected by #ifdef _KERNEL
> in ipc.h? Is it supposed to be used from userland?
>
It's needed by ipcs.
---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org gj[at]denx.de
__
Hello!
Is there any reason why struct ipc_perm is not protected by #ifdef _KERNEL
in ipc.h? Is it supposed to be used from userland?
Thanks!
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, se
(or Yet Another Package Installer Bikeshed)
[libh CC'd, for the archives]
On mer jun 18, 2003 at 06:23:42 +0300, Samy Al Bahra wrote:
> > - Whether the installer is graphical or not is not the issue. Grey boxes on
> > a blue background with yellow, red and black text is just plain ugly to a
> > s
If we adopt a dl-based framework for the installer, we can shrink it
down pretty much to whatever size we want (and memory usage can be less.
YaST, one of the most feature-packed installers out there (SuSE) takes
up less RAM than sysinstall!). This also gives us the ability to have
plugins across v
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:06:13PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:50:00AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > > > Where can one find a copy of the settlement agreement?
> > > >
> > > > Since it's part of a sealed court record, with non-disclosure
> > > >
ThanX for the replay..
Ok i am running 5-Current on a Dell inspiron 8500
I don't have much time right now for testing so i am just sending you the
logs, after this week end i well be totally free for fully testing..
If you need other HW for testing i can set you up with a shell on the Notebook
The man page for fork() says:
"ยท All interval timers are cleared; see setitimer(2)."
So clearly ITIMER_VIRTUAL should be cleared as well, but a quick test
showed that a fork()ed child still has the VIRTUAL (& PROF) timer running.
Is this right?
--
http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/stolz/ **
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:50:00AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > > Where can one find a copy of the settlement agreement?
> > >
> > > Since it's part of a sealed court record, with non-disclosure
> > > agreements required of both parties as the only publically
> > > acknowl
You've got me going. You've just touched on my favourite subject. Apologies
for those of you who prefer short e-mails.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:18:52PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Some of this could be done in the current installer, if there wasn't
> an effort to make it still fit on a floppy
Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > Where can one find a copy of the settlement agreement?
> >
> > Since it's part of a sealed court record, with non-disclosure
> > agreements required of both parties as the only publically
> > acknowledged part of the agreement, you would have to file a
> > Freedom Of Inform
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> Yes, it reminded me of that thread, but wkt was actually referring to
> System III, not 32V.
I am also pretty certain that it was widely stated at the time
that the UCB's license was the older Western Electric license,
which is the same license which allowed Lyon's to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:43:19AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Josef Grosch wrote:
> > > The settlement terms specifically state that SCO cannot sue anybody
> > > who makes a release based on 4.4-LITE. The settlement agreement is
> > > BINDING on both parties. SCO cannot revoke it, and will hav
Josef Grosch wrote:
> > The settlement terms specifically state that SCO cannot sue anybody
> > who makes a release based on 4.4-LITE. The settlement agreement is
> > BINDING on both parties. SCO cannot revoke it, and will have a hell
> > of a legal fight if they try.
>
> Where can one find a co
On 18-Jun-2003 David Gilbert wrote:
>> "Duncan" == Duncan Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Duncan> I am in the process of rewriting this driver for FreeBSD. It
> Duncan> can transmit, but RX is not yet going properly. As this is
> Duncan> evening work, it's likely to take at elast anot
28 matches
Mail list logo
