--- On Tue, 4/19/11, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> From: Thor Lancelot Simon
> Subject: Re: ata(4) and NCQ
> To: "Jonathan A. Kollasch"
> Cc: tech-kern@NetBSD.org, bou...@netbsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 1:13 PM
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:57:56PM
> +, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrot
I think you mean "halves the write rate".
--- On Thu, 2/23/12, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
From: Thor Lancelot Simon
Subject: Re: Snapshots in tmpfs
To: "David Holland"
Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 5:04 PM
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:45:32AM +, David Holland
Thor,
The NetBSD TCP stack can't handle 8K payload by page-flipping the payload and
prepending an mbuf for XDR/NFS/TCP/IP headers? Or is the issue the extra
page-mapping for the prepended mbuf?
On Tue, 8/26/14, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
Subject:
Hello all,
I don't see anyone asking to keep COMPAT_OSF1. It was never useful enough to
run "real" (arbitrary) OSF/1 binaries.
Please just remove it, and remove "and OSF1" from the Subject: line.
COMPAT_ULTRIX, is complete enough to run commercial apps; vendor X-servers for
all commonly-avail
On Sat, 3/16/19, Jason Thorpe wrote:
Subject: Re: Regarding the ULTRIX and OSF1 compats
To: "Jonathan Stone"
Cc: "Jaromír Doleček" , "Robert Elz"
, "Maxime Villard" , "Tech-kern"
, port-p...@netbsd.org, port-al...@netbsd.org
Date: Saturda
[[ building "Ultrix"-ABI binaries on non-Ultrix platforms, to test
COMPAT_ULTRIX ]]
I think x86 or arm makes a lot more sense than Sparc. All Ultrix platforms
were little-endian.
I don't recall ever making COMPAT_ULTRIX endian-neutral. Or whether any of the
struct-copying code cares.
You'd a
On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 02:43:55 AM PST, Johnny Billquist
wrote:
> Oh? So we are actually not POSIX compliant on that one? Interesting.
> (POSIX explicitly says that the timeout should be for an absolute time,
> which means that if you for example update the clock, moving it
> backwar
On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 10:19:53 PM PST, Simon Burge
wrote:
> I have a grotty hack that attempted to spin if the requested timeout
> was less than a tick based on what DragonflyBSD does. It mostly
> worked for simple tests but I haven't tested it seriously. It's at
> https://www
On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 10:43:34 AM PST, Martin Husemann
wrote:
> Kernels on that machines just would not run fully tickless.
That makes sense. I personallly would call that "tickless where possible", not
"fullly tickless".
[[cc'ed to thropejj as the lst person I know whotouched the PDQ code. tech-net
for discussion of refactoring ether_ifattach ]]
I'm nearing the end of reviving some DECstations and a few Vaxes. One of the
things I need/want for them is FDDI.
FDDI -- from the DEC "pdq"-based boards -- is the fas
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:54:31 PM PST, Martin Husemann
wrote:
>We have a simmilar problem with net80211, where we are required to have a
> (mostly unused) struct ethercom for each virtual interface (in the new stack)
>just because of initialization and to be able to use vlan(4) on a
On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 04:24:44 PM PST, Jason Thorpe
wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2024, at 1:29 PM, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>> Turns out that fddi_ifattach() is broken in 8.2 and 9.2. [...]
> Right, it was removed from -current before netbsd-10 branched after some
> di
In case it wasn't clear: when there's a known-to-crash device driver (e.g.,
DEC PDQ w/ varrious bus attachments), and no-one to support it,, then IMHO
removing it from -current is the right thing to do.
However, now that there's an (obviously required) one-line fix, and someone
actively using
Have you considered making this an "opt-in" with a setsockopt() to
enable/disable the change?
And maybe a sysctl to set the system-wide default for processes which don't
explicitly set that setsockopt()? Or does that "go without saying"?
if nothing else, that lets the adventurous experiment wit
On Thursday, June 5, 2025 at 09:36:58 AM PDT, Emmanuel Nyarko
wrote:
> Errmmm, I was thinking that it maybe becomes a default behavior.
>
> I mean every socket should be owned by the process that the socket was
> created for.
[...]
You say "should" be owned? Why? You're proposing a change
15 matches
Mail list logo
