Darren Reed wrote:
>
> Is it meant to be possible to compile a kernel *without* COMPAT_43 ?
>
> Has anyone else tried this recently ?
>
> For me, it seems to break the compile in (at least) kern_sig.c
>From /sys/i386/conf/NOTES:
#
# Implement system calls compatible with 4.3BSD and older vers
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
> Usually when testing a kernel compile, GENERIC is the kernel to test.
> If your changes are intrusive enough, you might also want to make sure
> that LINT builds ok. The LINT config file is generated from NOTES by
> typing 'make LINT' in /sys/i386/conf/
In some mail from John Baldwin, sie said:
>
> Darren Reed wrote:
> >
> > Is it meant to be possible to compile a kernel *without* COMPAT_43 ?
> >
> > Has anyone else tried this recently ?
> >
> > For me, it seems to break the compile in (at least) kern_sig.c
>
> >From /sys/i386/conf/NOTES:
>
Hi all,
In the process of learning device driver writing, I have written a
simple skeleton driver for an isa PnP card I have. Thanks to some kind
folks on the list I have ironed out most of my confusion. However I've
run into a strange problem that has me stumped.
Although this driver works (suc
> Hi, I need to drop packets using ipfw based on the value of
> TTL and the value of TTL on a 2.2.8-stable system. It seems
> ipfw does not support this, what options do I have?
If you use IP Filter, this should "just work". You won't have
to upgrade your system to FreeBSD 4.x/5.x either. I s
Maybe someone here knows. :-)
I'm looking to compile a program that will ultimately run on a BSDi 2.1
machine. Are there any versions of FreeBSD that are capable of doing the
compile and creating a compatible binary? (I've got FreeBSD releases
since 2.0.5 stashed away).
--
... Joe
-
Wes Peters wrote:
>
> Jonas Bulow wrote:
> >
> > Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know about the "bsd" or whatever way. If you're doing real
> > > parallel programming and want real performance, you'll use a test-and-set
> > > like function that uses the low-level machine instructions
I'm working on getting plex86 (formerly FreeMWare) to run under FreeBSD,
which requires writing a device driver. I wrote up a simple kld to
handle this, and a minimal version works perfectly. The problem I'm
having crops up when I add in all the other functionality that needs to
be included. Th
Is it possible and a good idea to have one inetd for the inside nic and
another with fewer services for the outside on a gateway machine,
or should I just use ipfw/ipchain for this?
Leif
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the mess
On Sunday, August 13, 2000, Leif Neland wrote:
> Is it possible and a good idea to have one inetd for the inside nic and
> another with fewer services for the outside on a gateway machine,
> or should I just use ipfw/ipchain for this?
From the inetd man page:
-a Specify a specific I
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe someone here knows. :-)
>
> I'm looking to compile a program that will ultimately run on a BSDi 2.1
> machine. Are there any versions of FreeBSD that are capable of doing the
> compile and creating a compatible binary
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Leif Neland wrote:
> Is it possible and a good idea to have one inetd for the inside nic and
> another with fewer services for the outside on a gateway machine,
> or should I just use ipfw/ipchain for this?
>
Depends on why you want them separate. You could use the -a opti
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Costello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leif Neland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: 2 inetd's with 2 nics
> On Sunday, August 13, 2000, Leif Neland wrote:
> > Is it possible and a good idea to h
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 11:31:12AM -0500, Chris Costello wrote:
>From the inetd man page:
>
> -a Specify a specific IP address to bind to. Alternatively, a host-
> name can be specified, in which case the IPv4 or IPv6 address
> which corresponds to that h
Devin Butterfield wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the process of learning device driver writing, I have written a
> simple skeleton driver for an isa PnP card I have.
>
> Although this driver works (successfully probes, attaches, and gets it's
> needed io resources) when compiled into the kernel, if
Hello,
I have an idea that I would love to see applied in FreeBSD source code,
but as I'm not skilled enough to code it, I post it to see if you think
it makes sense, and if someone would be interested in coding this. It is
a security measure regarding 'ps' command.
By using the 'ps' com
On Sunday, August 13, 2000, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> By using the 'ps' command, any user logged in the system can view all
> the running processes, including root's one and processes of other
> users. My idea is to limit a bit this behaviour.
If you want to keep your users completely out of the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Devin Butterfield writes:
: So my question is this: Do I need to do anything special to recover the
: resources from the unknown driver so that during loading *my* module can
: get the resources it needs?? Do I need to add something to my identify,
: probe, or attach
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Devin Butterfield writes:
> : So my question is this: Do I need to do anything special to recover the
> : resources from the unknown driver so that during loading *my* module can
> : get the resources it needs?? Do I need to add something to m
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Devin Butterfield writes:
: Hare there any plans to "back-port" this to -STABLE? Or do we
: have to wait for 5.0?
I don't know. I don't have PnP drivers that I'm working on at the
moment, so I've not kept up. You'd have to ask dfr (Doug Rabson).
Warner
Fellows,
A few days ago I have posted my port of the fm801 soud driver which's been
partly broken.
I would like to present a new pre-alpha version of this driver which
works almost Ok.
There are some certain problems -
- Sometimes it loops for the reason God knows...
- If the
21 matches
Mail list logo
