Winbond Watchdog [Was Re: Supermicro BIOS's watchdog feature?]

2010-08-07 Thread Xin LI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2010/07/01 00:12, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Xin LI writes: >> "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" writes: >>> Perhaps the motherboard has additional watchdog hardware? If you >>> disable the watchdog in BIOS, does ichwd still work? >> If I kill -9 watchdo

Re: Winbond Watchdog

2010-08-07 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Xin LI writes: > I'm still polishing up the driver, there seems to be no way to figure > out the base port address directly (datasheet said it's either 0x2e and > 0x4e) so for now I have its device identify method to do some dirty > hacks (outb/inb directly) and only check if with appropriate key

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Garrett Cooper writes: >I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision > 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion > is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables > should be discouraged You're supposed to use TUNABLE_LONG or T

Re: Avoiding sysctl at program startup using ELF aux vector (was: concurrent sysctl implementation)

2010-08-07 Thread Marius Strobl
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:11:31PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:08:08PM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:04:04PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:06:33AM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > > > Hi Kib, > > > > > > >

Re: Winbond Watchdog [Was Re: Supermicro BIOS's watchdog feature?]

2010-08-07 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
though. In case it'll help you or someone else I just put it online: http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20100807-02-wd-fintek-f71882fg.diff /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb This signature is about you not me.___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ma

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Garrett Cooper
2010/8/7 Dag-Erling Smørgrav : > Garrett Cooper writes: >>    I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision >> 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion >> is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables >> should be discouraged > >

Re: Avoiding sysctl at program startup using ELF aux vector (was: concurrent sysctl implementation)

2010-08-07 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 03:59:39PM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:11:31PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:08:08PM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:04:04PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Ivan Voras
On 7.8.2010 15:40, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Garrett Cooper writes: >>I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision >> 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion >> is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables >> should be d

Re: Avoiding sysctl at program startup using ELF aux vector (was: concurrent sysctl implementation)

2010-08-07 Thread Marius Strobl
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 09:09:04PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 03:59:39PM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:11:31PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:08:08PM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Ivan Voras writes: > Ok, but still - if the underlying value really is declared as "int", > doesn't it make perfect sense to have something like TUNABLE_INT for it? Perhaps. I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in the list archives (other than me announcing the change in r

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Garrett Cooper
2010/8/7 Dag-Erling Smørgrav : > Ivan Voras writes: >> Ok, but still - if the underlying value really is declared as "int", >> doesn't it make perfect sense to have something like TUNABLE_INT for it? > > Perhaps.  I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in > the list archives (

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Garrett Cooper writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > > Perhaps. I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in > > the list archives (other than me announcing the change in response to a > > bug report), but there must have been one, either on IRC or in Karlsruhe. > > In any ca

Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

2010-08-07 Thread Ivan Voras
2010/8/8 Dag-Erling Smørgrav : > Garrett Cooper writes: >> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: >> > Perhaps.  I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in >> > the list archives (other than me announcing the change in response to a >> > bug report), but there must have been one, either

glabel "force sectorsize" patch

2010-08-07 Thread Ivan Voras
Hi, In order to help users having 4k sector drives which the system recognizes as 512 byte sector drives, I'm proposing a patch to glabel which enables it to use a forced sector size for its native-labeled providers. It is naturally only usable with glabel-native labels (those created by "glabel l