Hi all,
I'm new to this list. and I have some question about
uhci.c and USB issue.
What are the splusb() and splx()?
and how is the reration between uhci_idone() and splusb()?
Above the uhci_idone() in uhci.c "/* called at splusb() */"
is mentioned.
Any helps ar
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 10:55:31PM +0200, Ali Niknam wrote:
> I tried this; this helps performance a lot, here are the findings:
> - under all conditions turning on HTT helps a *lot* (which is logical i
> think)
> - under non killing load (killing load = load where server would have
> crashed wit
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Stefan Eer wrote:
> Any reason, that there is a difference in semantics between:
>
> seteuid(id) vs. setreuid(-1, id)???
>
> The tests performed on the arguments are different (assuming a
> fixed arg of -1 for ruid) in that seteuid does not support the
On 7 Jun 2004 at 16:31, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 10:32, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > I think it might just be easier to do a straight comparison of the first N
> > characters of the two strings where N = length of the directory name.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
>You can do:
On Monday 07 June 2004 01:35 pm, Ali Niknam wrote:
> > There isn't a timeout. Rather, the lock spins so long as the current
> > owning thread is executing on another CPU.
>
> Interesting. Is there a way to 'lock' CPU's so that they always run on
> 'another' CPU ?
Not in userland, no.
> Unfortuna
At 9:37 AM -0600 6/7/04, Scott Long wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I think you have to officially demote it, with emphasis on the
point that "demotion is not a terminal condition". Then, if some
developer(s) show up and implement all the missing pieces, we
can happily announce it back in tier 1.
On Monday 07 June 2004 07:33 am, Thomas Moestl wrote:
> On Sun, 2004/06/06 at 14:59:21 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > > amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a
> > > number of developers that own amd64 hardware now
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>
> One thing to note is that whatever platforms get dropped from tier-1
> status will have a high probablility of not getting updated with the
> upcoming binutils/gcc/gdb update that is coming.
Logic dictates that the probability should
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote:
At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from
Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking
item for releases. ... As I said back then, demotion is not a
terminal condition, and I would be thrill
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> Just about all of that is listed as covered by the APSL. (Except GPL'd
> stuff, it looks like.)
>
>
I noticed this as well, but if you look at the contents (of libc in this
case), there are several */FreeBSD/ directories that contain files that
retain
On Sun, 2004/06/06 at 14:59:21 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a number of
> > developers that own amd64 hardware now, and a number of users who are
> > asking about it on the mai
On Saturday 05 June 2004 04:55 pm, Ali Niknam wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> As promised my findings regarding the changes; just came home after a night
> of trying and praying :)
>
> > Actually, by default, most mutexes in the system are sleep mutexes, so
> > they sleep on contention rather than spinning
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
> without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
> for his own sake.
Alpha is special, with what seems to me like a GDB bug. Try this:
echo '#include
int main
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>
> > As with Alpha,
> > the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
> > it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
>
> Agreed, but it's th
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:48:17PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:27:08PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> > >
> > >Doug Rabson also has basic TLS support working in perforce.
> >
> > What platforms? My understanding was that new binutils and gcc was
> > needed for sparc64
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:55:23PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> David also has patches for debugging support at:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/kse/dbg/
Unless David Xu completes full FSF paper work, we can't use his patches.
Using them tants us forever in getting stock GDB to support ou
16 matches
Mail list logo
