Because it's a dual boot machine. He wants to be able to see his FFS
volume under Windows just like you are able to see a Windows partition
under FreeBSD. You simply can't use NFS in this situation for obvious
reasons.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Mike Walker wrote:
> Windoze 2000 is supposed to supp
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
***
***
This is not a spam,
this e-mail was sent under the DB of
FreeHostedCgi.com if you wish to be removed read below
***
**
I wrote this in -current ML too,
From: Kevin Brunelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:10:10 -0500
> > It's not system call but `od' driver does check if the medium is
> > writable or not. It returns EACCESS when the mount option is -rw and
> > the medium is read-only. `od' is drive
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:17:00PM -0500, Kenny Drobnack wrote:
> claims that it works with Visors too. When I run coldsync, I get a
> message "Please press the hotsync button" and when I hit the button I
> get the message two more times, and then either it locked up or the
> whole system locks u
There was no comment to these. Any objections if I commit my proposed
changes?
N
- Forwarded message from Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:33:32 +
From: Nik Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "G. Adam Stanislav" <[E
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Wes Peters wrote:
> Add a list of executables and their MD5's to the kernel, to be loaded at
> boot time via the loader. Modify the kernel loader to refuse to exec
> any executable whose MD5 is known but doesn't match. Ditto for shared
> libraries and ld.so. There you have
> but gcc (g++) doesn't seem to want to link them in, and uses its own
> __builtin_new and __builtin_delete instead.
You need to compile everything with -fno-builtin so that g++ won't
try to use its own versions but yours instead.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "u
I might try this. I would have to reformat a partition as nfs, right?
JAn
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Mike Walker wrote:
> Windoze 2000 is supposed to support NFS, so why not use that instead?
>
> >Does anybody know of any attempt to write a Fast Filesystem driver for
> >windows 2000?. I have a machine
Disregard this. I am simply not awake
JAN
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I might try this. I would have to reformat a partition as nfs, right?
>
> JAn
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Mike Walker wrote:
>
> > Windoze 2000 is supposed to support NFS, so why not use that instead?
> >
>
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Nik Clayton wrote:
> There was no comment to these. Any objections if I commit my proposed
> changes?
> mmap - map files or devices into memory
>
> [...]
>
> doesn't immediately shout "You can use this function to allocate memory
> as well".
>
> Perhaps
>
> mm
:> mmap - allocate memory, or map files or devices into memory
:>
:> would be better?
:
:You have my vote. That information would have saved me quite a few
:hours of angst a few years ago when I was looking for a way to share
:memory between processes. In fact, it will probably be an impor
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
NC:
> :> mmap - allocate memory, or map files or devices into memory
> :>
> :> would be better?
> :
RH:
> :While you're at it :-) maybe you could add a few lines suggesting that
> :with the MAP_SHARED flag, this is a useful method of sharing memory
:Maybe I'm suffering a temporary lapse of clue, but is there some
:place where supplemental info (like code snippets) is kept? This
:kind of info might be handy to someone seeing the man page for the
:first time, but it doesn't seem quite right to put code samples
:in the man pages themselves.
Thanks for your reply, Jordan. -fno-builtin doesn't seem to work.
Consider the following simple scenario:
my_new.h
#include
inline void *operator new(size_t size);
-
my_new.cc
-
#include
#include
#include "my_new.h"
inline void *operator new(size_t s
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> > Add a list of executables and their MD5's to the kernel, to be loaded at
> > boot time via the loader. Modify the kernel loader to refuse to exec
> > any executable whose MD5 is known but doesn't match. Ditto for shared
> > l
Matt Dillon writes:
> :Matt Dillon wrote:
> :> Yes. In general softupdates will make the entire filesystem safer.
> :Does it make sense to use softupdates on file systems like / and
> :/usr which have little file creation/removal?
> I have had softupdates turned on for all of my mount poi
:> My recommendation is to turn softupdates on for everything you have,
:> and for us to make it a newfs default as well. At least in -stable.
:You use softupdates turned on for all of your ufs.
:Understand.
:What is the reason to use softupdates for file system
:with only atime updates o
> John Wilson writes:
> -
> my_new.cc
> -
> #include
> #include
> #include "my_new.h"
> inline void *operator new(size_t size)
> {
> printf("my new was called with size = %u\n", size);
> return malloc(size);
> }
This is stupid. Inline function
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Wilson writes:
: but gcc (g++) doesn't seem to want to link them in, and uses its own
: __builtin_new and __builtin_delete instead.
we do this all the time.
g++ foo.o -o foo -pthreads -static
works great. You must use g++ and not gcc to like, or you
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Wilson writes:
: inline void *operator new(size_t size)
This causes no code to be generated. Remove inline.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
You are absolutely right, that `inline' shouldn't have been there. My bad.
It works now - thanks!
John
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:51:35 -0800 (PST), Jean-Marc Zucconi wrote:
> > John Wilson writes:
>
> > -
> > my_new.cc
> > -
>
> > #include
> > #include
>
Matt Dillon wrote:
> Unless you are doing a read-only mount, there are still going to be
> cases where having softupdates turned on can be advantageous. For
> example, installworld will go a lot faster. I also consider softupdates
> a whole lot safer, even if all you are doing i
:OK, I'm sold on the general idea of using soft updates; but what
:sort of performance improvements should I expect to see?
:
:I do a kernel compile on a freshly-rebooted box with an without
:softupdates; without, it took 20m45s and with soft updates it
:still took 20m10s --- this is less than 3%
24 matches
Mail list logo
