On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Charlie Martin wrote:
>
>
> On 2011-09-07 12:53, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>>
>>> For my immediate purposes, I'd be happy with any way in which I could
>>> > brutally kill the kernel and force it to the debugger, say by
>>> > replacing the
>>> > panic call with a
On 2011-09-07 12:53, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
For my immediate purposes, I'd be happy with any way in which I could
> brutally kill the kernel and force it to the debugger, say by replacing the
> panic call with a printf followed by "1/0;". But I'm a little confused by
> the panic.c code --
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Charlie Martin wrote:
> I'm still pursuing a FreeBSD bug in "7.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD" -- and yes, we
> know this is wildly out of date, but it's not feasible to upgrade right now
> -- and while trying to backport a fix suggested here
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gma
This is great info, thanks. Is it worth having some kind of
environment variable tunable (or even compile time tunable) to have a
"fast" gettimeofday then? Is there a complimentary body of code that
assumes gettimeofday is precise?
Manish
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
I'm still pursuing a FreeBSD bug in "7.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD" -- and yes,
we know this is wildly out of date, but it's not feasible to upgrade
right now -- and while trying to backport a fix suggested here
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.current/134266 I got a
situation where the pan
On Wed Sep 7 11, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Sep-06 16:44:48 -0600, Manish Vachharajani
> wrote:
> >Under 7.3 (haven't checked 8 or 9) this issue crops up because the
> >time system call calls gettimeofday under the hood (see
> >lib/libc/gen/time.c). As a result, the kernel tries to get an
>
Hi All,
Thanks everyone for your input. As promised(although a bit late), I tested
this on FreeBSD to see how it would react. As I suspected it did encounter
the same problem. There is a few exceptions though.
1. The port randomization seems a bit less likely to choose the same port
twice on Free
On 07.09.2011 11:17, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 7/16/11 5:43 AM, Vlad Galu wrote:
Hello,
Hello!
A couple of years ago, Stef Walter proposed a patch[1] that enforced
the scope of routing messages. The general consesus was that the best
approach would be the OpenBSD way - transporting the FIB nu
On 9/6/11 8:03 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 7 September 2011 09:32, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Hocking
wrote:
Am wondering if anyone has done drivers the these sorts of network
interfaces that are offered by VMWare& Virtual box. I know that on
some Linux VM
On 7/16/11 5:43 AM, Vlad Galu wrote:
Hello,
A couple of years ago, Stef Walter proposed a patch[1] that enforced the scope
of routing messages. The general consesus was that the best approach would be
the OpenBSD way - transporting the FIB number in the message and letting the
user applicatio
10 matches
Mail list logo