On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:42:56PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> +#ifndef TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER
> +#define TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(head) { NULL, &(head).tqh_first }
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef TAILQ_FOREACH
> +#define TAILQ_FOREACH(var, head, field)
> \
> + f
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:36:57PM +0200, Adrian Penisoara wrote:
> Which of the following would then be the best option (also taking POLA
> into account):
> * leave things are they are
> * make ZFS under FreeBSD behave the way open(2) describes
> * have a new ZFS property govern the behavior an
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> Note that they are not based on Linux, but on uCLinux, which is
> something different.
Not really. It's just a linux kernel compiled without support for
MMUs. Which compiles out most of the linux VM code and adds some
smart stubs in
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 07:20:13AM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005, David Leimbach wrote:
> > > Yes, procfs rules!
> >
> > Procfs is from linux?
> >
> > I thought it was from Plan 9... along with rfork :).
>
> Nope. It was first implemented by Sun's Roger Faulkner in SVR4,
>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:16:42AM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> > procfs comes from v8 (research) unix, a direct predecessor of Plan 9,
> > way before SVR4.
>
> That's the prototype I was talking about, but I believe it was not
> an official part of version 8 (to the extent that anything was).
>
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:27:55AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> how you do it depends entirely on how they are doing the bonding in Linux.
> you do not give any clues as to what modules they are using.
Linux supports many different modes, the most standard one probably
beeing 802.3ad.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:50:26AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Several times in the past we've seen people complainign that Linux
> allows a device driver to know
> who called it and somehow it seems to store somewhere some information
> about who
> openned the device.. thos somehow allows
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:37:07PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> How does linux handle the implications of fork(2) in this scenario?
it's still counted as the same instance. Similar for dup or passing
descriptors over AF_UNIX sockets. The data is explictly not per-process
but per instance.
There's
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:55:40PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> >Lot's of driver use file->private to get at per-device data easily,
> >but that's just a shortcut.
>
> Ok, I thought that you were talking about per-process data being in the
> file descriptor.
No, Linux has absolutely no concept of p
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:54:40PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> though, some people use it for that purpose (e.g. in the original posting).
driver writers do all kinds of odd things ;-)
> it might not be such a bad idea..
> I don't see why the device entrypoints shouldn't have that argument
>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 08:59:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> disk drivers use a completely different set of entry points in Linux,
> and don't have access to per-fd data even in the case they're opened
> from userland. Character drivers to which this applies OTOH a
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 07:13:29PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> I would add that the UML patch applied to the hosted kernel source deeply
> modifies the ptrace(2) infrastructure. All UML processes are in fact
> processes on the host kernel, but the UML kernel ptrace's so that it reroutes
> all i
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > Is there a particular reason why there's no capability for setting flags
> > > on symlinks? the chflags syscall uses namei with FOLLOW, and changing this
> > > to NOFOLLOW allows chflags(2) to Do What I Want
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 12:49:31AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I've been unable to find any documentation on get_user_pages(),
> and you didn't provide a link to any.
>
> But looking at the source code, the reason for doing this is to
> permit DMA directly into user pages.
>
> I don't understan
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:17:23AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> OK, you mean "make non-pageable".
Well, I didn't write the initial mail :)
> The question, I guess, is "why?". Are you trying to do a delayed
> operation that will complete when the process has otherwise been
> swapped out?
well,
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:37:20PM +0200, aaron wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 May 2002 18:37, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> >
> > Such an arrangement is called "promiscuous includes".
>
> ok, i see
>
> Thanks for answering. I was under the impression that lots of linux apps rely
> on promiscuous inclu
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:19:18PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > Has anyone tapped the manufacturer on the shoulder hard enough to
> > get an answer?
>
> "Why are you not using Linux or another supported OS?"
It's not like they support development of the Linux tg3 driver
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Sergey Babkin wrote:
> their hands full with other things to do. In any case, the sar
> cources are extremely UnixWare/OpenUNIX-oriented and I think
> that it's easier to rewrite sar from the man page than try to port
> it.
Just for reference: The linux
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:20:42AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The FreeBSD malloc uses anonymous pages mmap'ed off of /dev/zero.
>
> The Linux malloc uses pages added to the process address space via
> a call to sbrk.
There is no "Linux malloc", neither does Linux have a sbrk syscall :)
But gl
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:33:29AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 07-Nov-2002 Julien Mabillard wrote:
> > hi,
> > can anyone tell me where inb(), outb() are defined
> > in the sources (FreeBSD RELENG_4_7 or CURRENT)?
> > on linux systems this is defined in
>
> For FreeBSD should be using bus_
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:51:31AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> Doing I/O from userland generally isn't supported. A header with
> is a kernel header though, not a userland one. :)
Only on traditional Unix systems. On Linux it never is.
> For i386-only, if
> you do the right calls to obtain pe
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:35:58AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> supports ACL management, but we don't yet implement NFSv4. It shouldn't
> be too hard to dig up information on the NFSv3 ACL RPC extensions and
> implement them on FreeBSD 5, since the semantics of our ACLs are highly
> compatible wi
22 matches
Mail list logo
