Re: FreeBSD UFS2 snapshots, and math ...

2005-10-22 Thread Oliver Fromme
user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's say I have a filesystem, and on that filesystem I create a snapshot > every single night, and every night I delete the snapshot from 5 nights > ago. This means that at all times, I have four snapshots running on that > filesystem, one from 1 day ago, one

Re: How disable attachment of sio(4) driver to device?

2005-10-22 Thread Bernd Walter
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:00:59PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:09, Bernd Walter wrote: > > I personally build specialized USB and Ethernet devices for doing > > Modbus/RTU RS485 timing. > > We use 9 bit data RS485 (the ninth bit is used as an address mark so > microcont

Re: How disable attachment of sio(4) driver to device?

2005-10-22 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:48, Bernd Walter wrote: > That's the big win with 9 bit. > Modbus uses 8 bit so each controller has to actively listen. > The RTU variant uses fixed idle times to mark packet ends, which is > hard to do right in kernel and unreliable to do from userland. > Since I needed mult

Re: How disable attachment of sio(4) driver to device?

2005-10-22 Thread Frank Behrens
Warner, John and others, thanks for your fast responses. John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21 Oct 2005 12:16: > But you could hack the sio(4) driver to check its IO port and return ENXIO if > it has a certain value, for example. Yes, this would not be a problem for me. But I want to pub

Re: How disable attachment of sio(4) driver to device?

2005-10-22 Thread Frank Behrens
Marcel Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21 Oct 2005 12:10: > A better alternative is to teach uart(4) about the protocol. It's > designed to allow multiple protocols. May be this could be possible, but I believe I must rewrite big parts of the driver. I don't know if this is the better sol

Re: How disable attachment of sio(4) driver to device?

2005-10-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Frank Behrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > Another solution would be to have your driver use the tty layer : > instead of banging the hardware directly, if that is compatible with : > the goals of your driver. This solution isn't in quotes because f

"panic: initiate_write_inodeblock_ufs2: already started" on 6.0-RC1 with Intel SRCU42L RAID.

2005-10-22 Thread Frank Mayhar
I ran into this panic this evening; PR entered as kern/87861. The filesystem that gets this is on an Intel SRCU42L RAID5 array and that seems to be the important characteristic. This also happens in 5.4-stable, so it's not something special about 6.0. I can reproduce this at will so it will be e