> Many are, though. At present, since we're teamware
> based, the following
> happens:
Thank You for a detailed explanation; it kind of sounds like an ungrateful yet
fascinating job.
Depending on which SCM you will switch, making all these hooks work migh get
easier.
For instance, Subversion's
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Linda Bernal wrote:
Here is an update on OpenSolaris for the month of February:
http://opensolaris.org/os/project/content/newsletter/feb06/
We are accepting contributions for the March newsletter, please send
them to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to include some ne
However, many of the <4M binaries also dynamically link with many
libraries which individually are also <4M. But in the in the aggregate
they are >4M and thrash the 512x8K itlb beyond recognition. I did a
little experiment with this (posted on performance:discuss) wherein I
took such an app and a
Hey,
Some of the streams for FOSDEM are available -
http://free-electrons.com/community/videos/conferences
ftp://ftp.belnet.be/pub/mirror/FOSDEM
In particular those links include the DTrace talk and tutorial, and an
interesting keynote from my perspective -
"Flipping the Switch to Freedom (...a
Eric Boutilier wrote:
I'll do whatever people want of course. Here are some options I'll throw
out, off the top of my head:
1. Create another list as Glynn suggested
2. Don't post them to a list
a. Post them to a page on opensolaris.org instead
b. Post them to my blog instead
3. Don't ch
Holger Berger wrote:
To make matters worse, Solaris (unlike many other
OS's) ties page_t structures to particular physical
addresses, and there is plenty of code that assumes
p_pagenum can't change even if the page isn't locked.
This complicates the issues of separating out the
"page size" the us
Holger Berger wrote:
US3 only has one TLB set with 512 entries for 8k pages. US3+ improved
this by the addition of another TLB set with 512 entries for 4M pages
- anything between these points - 64k and 512k pages - was ignored.
Today this design shows it's drawbacks as "automatic" MPSS has only
> To make matters worse, Solaris (unlike many other
> OS's) ties page_t structures to particular physical
> addresses, and there is plenty of code that assumes
> p_pagenum can't change even if the page isn't locked.
> This complicates the issues of separating out the
> "page size" the user sees and
What I *think* you're trying to say is that someone who has a GPL'd
driver in his hands could in theory port it to Open Solaris and then
publish the result on his own (not back through Sun). And another
person who wanted it could download and use it. And that all of this
forms another distribu
Artem Kachitchkine writes:
>
> > I don't think that's an Open Solaris question at all. You can run any
> > software you want, so long as you follow the terms of the license
> > granted to you for it.
>
> Or to paraphrase: go read GPL, silly; if you don't understand what it says,
> don't write c
Jim Grisanzio wrote:
Sara Dornsife wrote:
Jim,
Here's an idea. How about associating something visual with our
newsletter, like a logo?
> -Linda
Hey, I like it. The newsletter lives on the site now, so we should
have some flexibility graphically. I'd love for us to come up with a
name
I don't think that's an Open Solaris question at all. You can run any
software you want, so long as you follow the terms of the license
granted to you for it.
Or to paraphrase: go read GPL, silly; if you don't understand what it says,
don't write code for Solaris. It seems like a reasonable
On 3/9/06, Bill Rushmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
> > lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
> > want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product
Artem Kachitchkine writes:
>
> > case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code.
>
> Not all code is "incoming", some is simply "out there". E.g. one question
> that
> comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the
> author's web page as binary+sour
Sara Dornsife wrote:
Jim,
Here's an idea. How about associating something visual with our
newsletter, like a logo?
> -Linda
Hey, I like it. The newsletter lives on the site now, so we should
have some flexibility graphically. I'd love for us to come up with a
name and a logo. Maybe Sara ca
On 3/9/06, Dave Marquardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Holger" == Holger Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The problem here is that you lose most of the
> >> benefits in the kernel if the
> >> size is tunable, in one of two directions:
> >>
> >> either you still have 8k pages in the kernel
On 3/9/06, Eric Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [...]
> > Comparing SF68k/SF15k with Niagara is problematic. The broken MMU design in
> > the US3/4 CPU models used in these machines is not able to use a
> > significant amount of 64k pages. If you still got a small performance win
>
* Yann POUPET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-09 09:33]:
> Hello,
>
> I don't know if this is the right place for this question, I hope so ...
>
> I was just wondering if OpenSolaris' code has ever been checked/audited with
> tools that attempt to discover bugs, such as Coverty.
>
> http://scan.co
"Holger" == Holger Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The problem here is that you lose most of the
>> benefits in the kernel if the
>> size is tunable, in one of two directions:
>>
>> either you still have 8k pages in the kernel (i.e.
>> . you have
>> 4x the number of page_ts than you need, a
case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code.
Not all code is "incoming", some is simply "out there". E.g. one question that
comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the
author's web page as binary+source, is it legal to download such a driver
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't
> be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't
> much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris source
> tree unless someone discovers h
Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 3/9/06, Laura Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Linix Format DVD is all finalized. According to the publication,
BelliniX will be included on a DVD with Gentoo 2006 and SimplyMEPIS3.4-3.
The DVD-BOB ISO will be posted as soon as I think it looks ready for
r
Jim,
Here's an idea. How about associating something visual with our
newsletter, like a logo?
>
> -Linda
Hey, I like it. The newsletter lives on the site now, so we should
have some flexibility graphically. I'd love for us to come up with a
name and a logo. Maybe Sara can talk to us abou
On 3/9/06, Laura Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Linix Format DVD is all finalized. According to the publication,
> BelliniX will be included on a DVD with Gentoo 2006 and SimplyMEPIS3.4-3.
>
The DVD-BOB ISO will be posted as soon as I think it looks ready for
review. Soon I hope.
I k
Hello,
[...]
Comparing SF68k/SF15k with Niagara is problematic. The broken MMU design in the US3/4 CPU models used in these machines is not able to use a significant amount of 64k pages. If you still got a small performance win there then this would prove that an all-64k kernel has significant pe
The Linix Format DVD is all finalized. According to the publication,
BelliniX will be included on a DVD with Gentoo 2006 and
SimplyMEPIS3.4-3.
I've asked for copies of the publication to be sent our way so we can
see how it all presented. The publication also has a feature article
about OpenS
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:14:25AM +0100, Roland
> Mainz wrote:
> > BTW: The discussion was about a _tuneable_ which
> could be set to a value
> > used as default page size (used by kernel and
> returned by
> > |getpagesize()|&co.) - the default for this
> tuneable should remain 8k.
> > It would
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> >I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in
> >a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult
> >your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...?
>
> I think it's t
> You can get away without the dumpadm. Once you change
> swap in the vfstab
> and reboot it will automatically go to d10, at least
> that works for me.
> Actually I don't bother with lockfs either. But I do
> add hot spares if I
> have the disks spare.
I like to stick to the documentation; bes
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > The only thing that breaks is if apps don't call
> sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE)
> > or some similar function such as getpagesize() to
> obtain that
> > information portably.
>
> .. or they make assumptions about the possible range
> of values. ;)
>
> > Or did Solaris acciden
Original Message
Subject:
Proposal to start new project on Streaming Server
Date:
Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:54:18 -0800
From:
Gerard Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
opensolaris-discuss@open
Yann POUPET wrote:
Hello,
I don't know if this is the right place for this question, I hope so ...
I was just wondering if OpenSolaris' code has ever been checked/audited with
tools that attempt to discover bugs, such as Coverty.
http://scan.coverity.com/
There may be some other similar tool
Jürgen Keil wrote:
This is apparently a known issue:
Bug ID: 6381203
Synopsis: deadlock due to i/o while assigning (tc_lock held)
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6381203
Fixed in build 36.
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[EMAIL
I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in
a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult
your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...?
I think it's totally reasonable to put out some guidelines about issues related
to GPL driv
UNIX admin wrote:
It's a bit of work to set up, and it's not supported.
x86 only for now.
You still need a UFS slice somewhere to hold the boot
archive. But it does work; my 2 x 2 GHz amd box
boots
w/ zfs root.
Once grub groks zfs, the need for the slice will go
away.
You mean you have a UFS
UNIX admin wrote:
metainit d0 -m d11
dumpadm /dev/md/dsk/d10
(vi /etc/vfstab and modify the "swap" entry to point to /dev/md/dsk/d10)
lockfs -fa; reboot
You can get away without the dumpadm. Once you change swap in the vfstab
and reboot it will automatically go to d10, at least that works fo
>Hello,
>
>I don't know if this is the right place for this question, I hope so ...
>
>I was just wondering if OpenSolaris' code has ever been checked/audited with
>tools that attempt to
discover bugs, such as Coverty.
>
>http://scan.coverity.com/
>
>There may be some other similar tools, and it
> Mirroring boot/OS disks is still a huge pain, unless
> the procedure has
> drastically changed in the past 2-3 years.
Huh?
I can set up mirroring within 45 seconds, blindfolded with both hands tied
behind my back:
metadb -a -f -c 3 c0d0s7 c1d0s7
metainit -f d1 1 1 c0d0s0
metainit d2 1 1 c1d0s
Hello,
I don't know if this is the right place for this question, I hope so ...
I was just wondering if OpenSolaris' code has ever been checked/audited with
tools that attempt to discover bugs, such as Coverty.
http://scan.coverity.com/
There may be some other similar tools, and it could be in
I really don't think this thread is at all useful or helpful, but I
can't seem to resist. :-<
Bill Rushmore writes:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >
> > Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
> > lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time w
Bill Rushmore wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product.
That is completely unrealistic for the typ
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
> Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
> lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
> want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product.
That is completely unrealistic for the typical open source
Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote:
> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
> only use the magic numbers and general chip
On 3/9/06, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal
> > with SVM/SDS again.
> Why?
> SVM has really come a long way. It's integrated into Solaris by default and
> very reliable.
> I can't count the number of times SVM has saved me, not to mentio
Hello Patrick,
Thursday, March 9, 2006, 9:43:35 AM, you wrote:
PM> Eric Enright wrote:
>> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
>> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
>> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent
> However I only want the following :
>
> (1) Take three disks and make a ZFS filesystem
> (2) set the compression option on.
> (2) Share it out via NFS
>
> Thats it. That is all.
The last time I tried this (two weeks ago, ~snv_34, only one disk
in the zpool), ZFS on the NFS4 server
>Eric Enright wrote:
>> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
>> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
>> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
>> only use the magic numbers and general chip programming lo
On 3/9/06, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Enright wrote:
> > I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
> > usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
> > know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
> >
Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic rather
t
Hello list,
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic rather
than reuse
51 matches
Mail list logo
