Re: [CFR] Specify the lock(1) timeout unit

2004-10-21 Thread Peter Pentchev
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:38:10PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > Here's a little patch that teaches lock(1) about timeouts specified in > > seconds, hours, or days in addition to the minutes it currently assumes. > > I could commit this in a week i

Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200

2004-10-21 Thread Brooks Davis
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:34:56AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 10:59:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > [got no answer on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I've tested this on 5.3-BETA7 - works OK, no more watchdog timeouts. > > So could someone review those patches and

Re: [CFR] Specify the lock(1) timeout unit

2004-10-21 Thread Robert Watson
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Peter Pentchev wrote: > Here's a little patch that teaches lock(1) about timeouts specified in > seconds, hours, or days in addition to the minutes it currently assumes. > I could commit this in a week if there are no objections. I think the normal convention here (see also

Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200

2004-10-21 Thread Brooks Davis
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:34:56AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 10:59:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > @@ -1978,6 +1982,7 @@ > > case DC_DEVICEID_3CSOHOB: > > case DC_DEVICEID_MSMN120: > > case DC_DEVICEID_MSMN130_FAKE: /* XXX avoid collision

Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200

2004-10-21 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 10:59:50PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [got no answer on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've tested this on 5.3-BETA7 - works OK, no more watchdog timeouts. > So could someone review those patches and add them to the source tree? > It's probably a good idea to update dc(4)

Re: [PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200

2004-10-21 Thread Simon L. Nielsen
On 2004.10.20 22:59:50 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [got no answer on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've tested this on 5.3-BETA7 - works OK, no more watchdog timeouts. > So could someone review those patches and add them to the source tree? > It's probably a good idea to update dc(4) and supporte

Re: [CFR] Specify the lock(1) timeout unit

2004-10-21 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:32:08PM +0200, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > On 2004.10.21 14:37:10 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > > Here's a little patch that teaches lock(1) about timeouts specified in > > seconds, hours, or days in addition to the minutes it currently assumes. > > I could commit this

Re: [CFR] Specify the lock(1) timeout unit

2004-10-21 Thread Simon L. Nielsen
On 2004.10.21 14:37:10 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > Here's a little patch that teaches lock(1) about timeouts specified in > seconds, hours, or days in addition to the minutes it currently assumes. > I could commit this in a week if there are no objections. Wouldn't it be more natural to just a

USB OHCI problems...

2004-10-21 Thread Barry Bouwsma
Apologies for this posting, as so far as I know it's a known issue that the USB OHCI code has some problems, or perhaps that there have been code commits in the last weeks so this is no longer a problem... Anyway, under FreeBSD-4 with kernel modules built 10.August from source that I believe is ba

[CFR] Specify the lock(1) timeout unit

2004-10-21 Thread Peter Pentchev
Hi, Here's a little patch that teaches lock(1) about timeouts specified in seconds, hours, or days in addition to the minutes it currently assumes. I could commit this in a week if there are no objections. G'luck, Peter Index: src/usr.bin/lock/lock.1 =

Virus intercepted

2004-10-21 Thread hackers
A message you sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> contained Worm.SomeFool.X and has not been delivered. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"