[PATCH] add '-' glibc extension to strftime(3)

2004-10-16 Thread Xin LI
Hi, folks, It turns out that the GNU extension '-' in their strftime(3) implementation is somewhat popular in several applications. The patch in the last part of this e-mail will add a simulate implementation for it. My question is: (1) Am I doing things cleanly and correctly? I have att

thread-safe popen(3) at 4-STABLE

2004-10-16 Thread Dmitry Morozovsky
Dear colleagues, checking for hanged and CPU-eating clamav, my colleague ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) found that popen(3) is not thread safe. What about commiting tjr's fix (attached) to RELENG_4? Sincerely, D.Marck[DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] -

Re: NFS + VM question

2004-10-16 Thread Jeremie Le Hen
> It really sounds like nullfs would be the solution for me, > but unfortunately, I can't use it because of the known pro- > blems of nullfs in FreeBSD 4-stable (which is the branch > that I'm using). It would definitely be the solution, but there are still problems with it. Mark Liminon made a ca

Re: open() vs the lowest unused file descriptor

2004-10-16 Thread Ryan Sommers
Carl J wrote: Hi! Today I noticed that on Single Unix Specification V2, as well as on the Linux 2.4.26 machine I have here, that the open() call promises to return the lowest unused file descriptor when successful. I'm just wondering: does FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x promise that? If so, should we update t

Re: NFS + VM question

2004-10-16 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:57, Oliver Fromme wrote: > File: "/chroot/one/bin/httpd" > Device: 255,33554437 Inode: 2268790Links: 1 > File: "/chroot/two/bin/httpd" > Device: 255,33554439 Inode: 2268790Links: 1 > File: "/chroot/one/bin/httpd" > Device: 255,33554458 Inode: 2268790Li

open() vs the lowest unused file descriptor

2004-10-16 Thread Carl J
Hi! Today I noticed that on Single Unix Specification V2, as well as on the Linux 2.4.26 machine I have here, that the open() call promises to return the lowest unused file descriptor when successful. I'm just wondering: does FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x promise that? If so, should we update the manpage to

Re: NFS + VM question

2004-10-16 Thread Oliver Fromme
Peter Edwards wrote: > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:49:48 +0100, David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > [...] > > > If the memory isn't shared in this situation, is there a > > > way to change the design so it can be shared?

Re: NFS + VM question

2004-10-16 Thread Peter Edwards
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:49:48 +0100, David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > On the other hand, the kernel should know that the mounts > > come from the same NFS source, so it might actually be able > > to handle it efficiently (i.