On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:57:58PM -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:16:51PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
[fscking a RO partition]
> > I think it's broken in 5.x as well. It's fallout from GEOM IIRC, and it is
> > annoying.
>
> Grr, I meant 4.x not 5.x, and I thought the prob
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:49:04AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:57:58PM -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote:
[fscking a RO partition]
> > Grr, I meant 4.x not 5.x, and I thought the problem started about the time
> > bg fsck was introduced...
>
> Right: I just tried on a Free
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 01:32, David Xu wrote:
> > You are going to be unable to use libc if you create raw thread in your
> > program, libc uses pthread APIs, if you create a raw thread, your
> > program will crash if you use any libc function which needs pthread
> > interface.
>
> I don't
Sergey Babkin wrote:
> From: Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > The difference in CPU time (and wall clock time) seems
> > simply to be caused by different compression code. gzip
> > is noticeably more efficient than libz, at least on the
> > OS/processor combination where I tested it (Athlon64 with
>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:49:04AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
>
> Right: I just tried on a FreeBSD 4.11, and I can fsck a partition
> which has just been remounted RO.
>
> Could it be interesting (and quite safe !) to recompile 4.X's fsck
> under FreeBSD6 and do the test again on FreeBSD 6 ?
On Monday 16 October 2006 04:15, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:49:04AM +0200, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:57:58PM -0500, Rick C. Petty wrote:
> [fscking a RO partition]
> > > Grr, I meant 4.x not 5.x, and I thought the problem started about the
tim
On Sunday 15 October 2006 11:21, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
>
> > System: FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw 6.1-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #9: Thu May
11 14:31:45 CST 2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/usr.obj/usr/src/sys/FREEBSD i386
> >
> >> Description:
> > - sys/se
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:31:24PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 11:21, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
> >
> > > System: FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw 6.1-STABLE FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #9: Thu
> > > May
> 11 14:31:45 CST 2006
> [EMAIL PROT
[This is still being sent to too many mailing lists since I don't know
which ones it should go to except gnats.]
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
Including sys/types.h would add lots of namespace pollution which
sys/ipc.h and sys/sem.h are trying hard to avoid. sem.h is trying too
ha
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:31:24PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
Is this better?
...
Thanks, I didn't go through the whole sem.h.
Also, it seems we should put these parts before 'sturct semid_ds'.
or say, after we include sys/ipc.h (which inclu
10 matches
Mail list logo
