On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 07:51:41AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> So really should simply document the option DRM_NO_AGP rather than
> telling folks to include unnecessary drivers!
Just because it compiles doesn't mean it works properly. For most
drivers at least, you really need
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:11:03PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:55:03AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:09:40AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:46:28AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...] since
In message: <20090511015855.gd16...@britannica.bec.de>
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:51:41PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > I've missed much of the discussion, can someone recap exactly what
: > you'd like to see changed? That would be the starting point fo
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:55:03AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:09:40AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:46:28AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> >
> > > [...] since there's no way of changing a PGP passphrase
> > > short of generating a new
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:55:03AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:09:40AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:46:28AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> >
> > > [...] since there's no way of changing a PGP passphrase
> > > short of generating a new
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:51:41PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I've missed much of the discussion, can someone recap exactly what
> you'd like to see changed? That would be the starting point for any
> user-visisble changes to FreeBSD...
There is currently a mixed naming convention when referi
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:09:40AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:46:28AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
>
> > [...] since there's no way of changing a PGP passphrase
> > short of generating a new key.
>
> Huh? Sure, you have a need to deal with keyring copies from bef
In message: <20090510220227.gd16...@britannica.bec.de>
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 04:31:34AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
: > have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name?
: > being different creates another layer of confusion.
:
: We
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 03:46:28AM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> [...] since there's no way of changing a PGP passphrase
> short of generating a new key.
Huh? Sure, you have a need to deal with keyring copies from before
the change, maybe with some more rm -P and its limtations, but
otherwise,
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 04:31:34AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name?
> being different creates another layer of confusion.
We had a short discussion about this during BSDCan. Kirk didn't mind and
if it should be reasonable to get c
Mihai Chelaru wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: kefren
Date: Fri May 8 05:18:34 UTC 2009
Modified Files:
src/sys/dist/ipf/netinet: ip_fil_netbsd.c
Log Message:
Don't call callout_stop() without callout_init()
Fixes PR/41364
To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rd
Simon Burge writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
>> [ ... ] Encrypted swap should
>> be the default -- either using cgd or by simply encrypting the blocks as
>> they go in and out without using the cgd layer.
>
> You've benchmarked the effect of this, especially on older hardware?
No, but other
hi,
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 05:18:26AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Module Name: src
> > Committed By: yamt
> > Date: Sun May 10 05:18:26 UTC 2009
> >
> > Modified Files:
> >src/sys/nfs: nfs_vnops.c
> >
> > Log Message:
> > nfs_lookup: vn_lock the vno
On Sat, 9 May 2009 03:46:28 +0100
Alistair Crooks wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:18:38PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >
> > "Alistair G. Crooks" writes:
> >
> > > Module Name: src
> > > Committed By: agc
> > > Date: Fri May 8 06:06:39 UTC 2009
> > >
> > > Modifie
Simon Burge wrote:
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
[ ... ] Encrypted swap should
be the default -- either using cgd or by simply encrypting the blocks as
they go in and out without using the cgd layer.
You've benchmarked the effect of this, especially on older hardware?
Let's first have it as an
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 12:44:27PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> By that token, it would be of use for NetBSD to port over the encrypted
> swap features other OSes have (it should be essentially no performance
> hit),
Writing even an encrypted copy of a passphrase to disk is still a
hazard
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 05:18:26AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By:yamt
> Date:Sun May 10 05:18:26 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/nfs: nfs_vnops.c
>
> Log Message:
> nfs_lookup: vn_lock the vnode returned by cache_look
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 04:31:34AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
| have you tried to convince freebsd guys to use your preferred name?
| being different creates another layer of confusion.
As I explained in my original thread about this issue [1], it is the
inconsistency in use of "ffs" versu
"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> [ ... ] Encrypted swap should
> be the default -- either using cgd or by simply encrypting the blocks as
> they go in and out without using the cgd layer.
You've benchmarked the effect of this, especially on older hardware?
Simon.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:12 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
>> That said, where we now return EPERM is where in the future we'll
>> return the error value returned by kauth(9), like many many other
>> places in the kernel. Other parts of the networking stacks (say,
>> opening a raw socket) now retur
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
> isn't KAUTH_REQ_NETWORK_SOCKET_RAWSOCK being deprecated in favor of _OPEN?
I'm still trying to decide, that's why I used this one (so removing it
causes errors).
On one hand, it would be nice to centralize everything like we
planned. On
hi,
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: elad
> Date: Wed May 6 21:41:59 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/netinet: ip_output.c
> src/sys/netinet6: ip6_output.c ip6_var.h ipsec.c ipsec.h raw_ip6.c
> udp6_output.c
>
> Log Message:
> Remove some usage of "priv" a
hi,
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
> wrote:
>
have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
won't be a problem?
>>>
>>> Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
>>> don't think it should be a problem.
>>
>> "don'
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
wrote:
>>> have you checked callers and ensure that the change from EACCES to EPERM
>>> won't be a problem?
>>
>> Only ipsec_set_policy() returns EPERM instead of EACCES now, and I
>> don't think it should be a problem.
>
> "don't think"? why not
24 matches
Mail list logo
