On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:24:54PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>
> I wonder if we could reuse bits from the read-ahead code for write-behind ?
I'm not sure the read-ahead code is working properly. When I read through
the filesystem with cat or dd bs=1024k, on a device (wd on ahcisata)
that can d
(2012/10/17 4:13), Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, SAITOH Masanobu wrote:
>> Modified Files:
>> src/share/man/man3: bits.3
>>
>> Log Message:
>> Return value of __BIT() and __BITS() is not uint32_t but uint64_t.
>
> No, they are uintmax_t.
>
> uintmax_t happens to be the same as ui
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, SAITOH Masanobu wrote:
Modified Files:
src/share/man/man3: bits.3
Log Message:
Return value of __BIT() and __BITS() is not uint32_t but uint64_t.
No, they are uintmax_t.
uintmax_t happens to be the same as uint64_t on all present day NetBSD
platforms, but a new pl
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, SAITOH Masanobu wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: msaitoh
> Date: Tue Oct 16 17:39:35 UTC 2012
>
> Modified Files:
> src/share/man/man3: bits.3
>
> Log Message:
> Return value of __BIT() and __BITS() is not uint32_t but uint64_t.
but surely, it is uintm
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:32 +0200
From: Alan Barrett
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>@@ -796,7 +794,11 @@ zfs_link_destroy(zfs_dirlock_t *dl, znod
>if (zp_is_dir && !zfs_dirempty(zp)) { /* dir not empty */
>mutex_exit(&zp->z_l
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
@@ -796,7 +794,11 @@ zfs_link_destroy(zfs_dirlock_t *dl, znod
if (zp_is_dir && !zfs_dirempty(zp)) { /* dir not empty */
mutex_exit(&zp->z_lock);
vn_vfsunlock(vp);
+#ifdef __NetBSD__
