On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:07:57AM +0900, enami tsugutomo wrote:
> > but but but that's clearly stupid! :-)
>
> I feel comfortable while reading code which has the empty line.
> Lacking it irritates me as if I met code like `for (i=0;i<4096;i++)'
> and I tend to lose interest on such code.
I
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 11:11:13AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > At the moment, I'd say it's not worth adding it if it's not there, and
> > not worth taking it out if it is.
>
> It only had bootxx_ffs.
>
> Anyway, we have many inconsisntency for LFS in sysinst.
> i386 doesn't have bootxx
dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:24:07PM +, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Also put bootxx_ffsv2 into installation ramdisk.
> >
> > XXX: is it worth to put bootxx_lfs nowadays?
>
> At the moment, I'd say it's not worth adding it if it's not
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:24:07PM +, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> Log Message:
> Also put bootxx_ffsv2 into installation ramdisk.
>
> XXX: is it worth to put bootxx_lfs nowadays?
At the moment, I'd say it's not worth adding it if it's not there, and
not worth taking it out if it is.
If we get
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:03:54AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > I suggested that to ad in private email earlier. UFS1 is still good for
> > small file systems because it has less overhead.
>
> Is the possible overhead noticeable on the modern CPU?
> If not, it's okay to change default per port
jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:03:54AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > I suggested that to ad in private email earlier. UFS1 is still good for
> > > small file systems because it has less overhead.
> >
> > Is the possible overhead noticeable on the modern CPU?
> > I
jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:52:39AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:03:54AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > > > I suggested that to ad in private email earlier. UFS1 is still good
> > > > > for
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:52:39AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 08:03:54AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > > I suggested that to ad in private email earlier. UFS1 is still good for
> > > > small file systems because it has less overhe
pe...@piermont.com wrote:
> Martin Husemann writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:13:38AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> >> Like this?
> >
> > Looks good - one more evil idea: do we know the size of the target disk
> > at this point already? (I think so...)
> > We could make UFS2 the default for
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:01PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> Yes, alpha boots. It has significant problems from what I have seen.
PR numbers?
(There are quite a few in my index, but they're mostly old and of
doubtful currency.)
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
David Holland writes:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 05:56:04PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > There are others. I don't want to belabor it.
>
> all the same, I don't remember seeing any justification for adding yet
> another switch.
I explained the justification during the original discussion -
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 05:56:04PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> There are others. I don't want to belabor it.
all the same, I don't remember seeing any justification for adding yet
another switch.
remember, each one doubles the number of possible build configurations.
--
David A. Holland
d
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> It is not nice to have one MK variable overwrite another and I don't think
> we have a precedence for this.
A few moments of grepping reveals, for one example:
. if defined(NOSTATICLIB) && ${MKPICLIB} != "no"
MKSTATICLIB:= no
. else
MKPIC:=
In article <874ox4w8xh@snark.cb.piermont.com>,
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>matthew green writes:
>>Alan Barrett writes:
>>> Perry, please could you answer this question.
>>
>>I'd rather not re-open the discussion without a good cause to do so, no.
>>
>> christos, myself and al
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:04:36PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> I think you have to take softnet_lock, since bridge_forward() is called from
> softint where not lock is held.
There is a minor problem with this. If you look elsewhere in the networking
code softints and callouts are usually crea
Alan Barrett writes:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> Could someone explain to me what the big deal in the first place is?
>> Does having an extra boolean really make the world a horrible place?
>> So MKREPRO will set MKARZERO, what's the big deal? Why is this worth
>> getting up
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Could someone explain to me what the big deal in the first place is?
> Does having an extra boolean really make the world a horrible place?
> So MKREPRO will set MKARZERO, what's the big deal? Why is this worth
> getting upset about? Jeesh.
The big de
matthew green writes:
>Alan Barrett writes:
>> Perry, please could you answer this question.
>
>I'd rather not re-open the discussion without a good cause to do so, no.
>
> christos, myself and alan have all asked you about this and you
> continue to refuse to answer it.
Actuall
Alan Barrett writes:
> Perry, please could you answer this question.
I'd rather not re-open the discussion without a good cause to do so, no.
christos, myself and alan have all asked you about this and you
continue to refuse to answer it. ie, everyone who has been
giving you fe
Martin Husemann writes:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:13:38AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>> Like this?
>
> Looks good - one more evil idea: do we know the size of the target disk
> at this point already? (I think so...)
> We could make UFS2 the default for everything > 50GB or some arbitrary
> t
Alan Barrett writes:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: apb
> Date: Sat Apr 4 15:27:48 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/distrib/sets/lists/comp: mi
>
> Log Message:
> Mention html versions of recently-added bit* man pages
Thanks for getting that, Alan.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzg
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:13:38AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> Like this?
Looks good - one more evil idea: do we know the size of the target disk
at this point already? (I think so...)
We could make UFS2 the default for everything > 50GB or some arbitrary
threshold.
Martin
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 12:50:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > I don't like such useless intermediate functions. It doesn't make code
> > easier to read.
>
> It is a useful intermediate function. Code flow becomes clearer. Or do you
> think longer function is easier to read, like tcp_outpu
a...@netbsd.org wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:04:43PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:43:46PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > In any case, __HAVE_UFS2_BOOT in types.h seems ambiguous for me.
> > > Isn't it better to have some other macro in sysinst/arch/${MA
Late reply. :)
I just read if_vlan.c and found that part. My complaint was that readers
can't know the intention of (IFCAP_CSUM_IPv4_Tx | IFCAP_CSUM_IPv4_Rx |
IFCAP_CSUM_TCPv4_Tx | IFCAP_CSUM_TCPv4_Rx | IFCAP_CSUM_UDPv4_Tx |
IFCAP_CSUM_UDPv4_Rx | IFCAP_CSUM_TCPv6_Tx | IFCAP_CSUM_TCPv6_Rx |
IFCAP_
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 05:51:56PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: bouyer
> > Date: Sat Apr 4 15:47:28 UTC 2009
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/sys/net: if_bridge.c
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Fix a comment,
Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: bouyer
> Date: Sat Apr 4 15:47:28 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/net: if_bridge.c
>
> Log Message:
> Fix a comment, and make it build.
+#include /* for softnet_lock */
Isn't the first "/" superflous?
Christoph
> I don't like such useless intermediate functions. It doesn't make code
> easier to read.
It is a useful intermediate function. Code flow becomes clearer. Or do you
think longer function is easier to read, like tcp_output()? :)
Masao
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:04:36PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> Sorry for delayed review.
>
> > @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@
> > /* Tear down the routing table. */
> > bridge_rtable_fini(sc);
> >
> > +
> > +
> > + softint_disestablish(sc->sc_softintr);
> > +
> > free(sc, M_DEVBUF);
> >
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 12:06:12AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> I was reviewing this change. :)
>
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:00:23AM +, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: bouyer
> > Date: Sat Apr 4 10:00:23 UTC 2009
> >
> > Modified Fi
I was reviewing this change. :)
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:00:23AM +, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: bouyer
> Date: Sat Apr 4 10:00:23 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/net: if_bridge.c if_bridgevar.h
>
> Log Message:
> Fix for if_start() and pfi
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:12:59PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:50:00AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > alpha and pmax seem unmaintained and as far as I can tell don't boot/work,
> > so I don't care.
>
> I have no pmax, but alpha (current as of a few hours ago) boots
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:04:43PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:43:46PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > In any case, __HAVE_UFS2_BOOT in types.h seems ambiguous for me.
> > Isn't it better to have some other macro in sysinst/arch/${MACHINE}/md.h ?
>
> I agree, it doe
Alan Barrett writes:
> Perry, please could you answer this question.
I'd rather not re-open the discussion without a good cause to do so, no.
MKREPRO is going in slowly, btw. -- you may have seen the commits for
the kernel Makefile etc. -- look for me to post about changes to
build.sh adding su
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 11:50:00AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> alpha and pmax seem unmaintained and as far as I can tell don't boot/work,
> so I don't care.
I have no pmax, but alpha (current as of a few hours ago) boots just fine.
Martin
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 09:43:46PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> In any case, __HAVE_UFS2_BOOT in types.h seems ambiguous for me.
> Isn't it better to have some other macro in sysinst/arch/${MACHINE}/md.h ?
I agree, it does not belong in types.h.
Martin
a...@netbsd.org wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 07:47:12PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > a...@netbsd.org wrote:
> > > Module Name: src
> > > Committed By: ad
> > > Date: Sat Apr 4 10:38:00 UTC 2009
> > >
> > > Modified Files:
> > > src/distrib/utils/sysinst: bsddisklabe
Sorry for delayed review.
> @@ -410,6 +419,10 @@
> /* Tear down the routing table. */
> bridge_rtable_fini(sc);
>
> +
> +
> + softint_disestablish(sc->sc_softintr);
> +
> free(sc, M_DEVBUF);
>
> return (0);
Please trim these blank lines.
> @@ -1305,124 +1318,139 @
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 07:47:12PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> a...@netbsd.org wrote:
>
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: ad
> > Date: Sat Apr 4 10:38:00 UTC 2009
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/distrib/utils/sysinst: bsddisklabel.c
> >
> > Log Message:
>
Perry, please could you answer this question.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > As indicated, I see nothing wrong with a MKDETERMINISTIC that
> > flips the MKARZERO flag as well as the other flags that control
> > dete
a...@netbsd.org wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: ad
> Date: Sat Apr 4 10:38:00 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/distrib/utils/sysinst: bsddisklabel.c
>
> Log Message:
> - Default to UFS2 if the platform can boot from it.
Should we reject UFS2 for root partition
if MD
41 matches
Mail list logo
