On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 09:00:49PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
>
> Assuming that dmesg by itself produces reasonable-looking output (ie,
> so long as dmesg itself isn't broken), this indicates your sound
> hardware isn't hooked up to the audio subsystem. I would expect the
> cat to /dev/audio to fail
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:01:50AM -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
>
> The key to resolving problems is timeliness of inquires and responses.
It's more than a little difficult for volunteers to respond to you
quickly and in an meaningful way if you don't provide the basic data
in an unmodified form!
e need mutiboot for xen, so we'd better learn to
live with it.
What would it take to make GCC emit code for the correct model?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
I've been doing Doxygen markup on some parts of the generic kernel
(our own kernel code used in our product has extensive Doxy markup).
Though the Doxygen toolchain is quite heavyweight I've come to believe
that it's still valuable to mark up NetBSD with file, function, and
datastructure comments i
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:52:49PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>
> The buffer queue could be corrupted here, because of this.
I think this stuff should all be mutex-protected. For what other
reason do we need splbio/splvm in here any more?
--
Thor Lancelot
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:16:41PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
[I wrote]
> > I think this stuff should all be mutex-protected. For what other
> > reason do we need splbio/splvm in here any more?
>
> Because it has not yet been made MP-safe ?
> Sure, make these MP-safe but as a quick fix for netbs
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 03:59:29PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> Does it actually do MLPPP? I only find mention of Multilink PPP (which
> they abbreviate "MP" for some silly reason) in usr.sbin/npppd/npppd/ppp.h.
As far as I know, the standard *is* "MP". MLPPP -- in my years-ago
experience an
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 10:59:37PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
>
> It still wouldn't be perfect. Block size is one thing, block alignment
> the next. A filesystem with 1k blocks (filesystem units == clusters)
> has problems to work on disks with 2k blocks (device units == sectors).
> The only s
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:06:00AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>
> I need to add zero-page to support XIP. Unallocated blocks are redirected
> to this. Basically it's a static simgle page filled with zero.
Perhaps "pageofzeroes" would be a less confusing -- though longer -- name?
Something na
are probably in a very small minority of those who have
tried to use it since the vmlocking2 merge.
Are you perchance on a uniprocessor?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at on
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:33:28PM -0500, Brian Marcotte wrote:
> I have more on our NFS hangs. When it happens lately, it almost always
> lasts 5-6 minutes, and ends with this kernel message:
>
> short receive (548/16512) from nfs server trantor3:/users/u
The server is presently a NetApp
nt?
So is a terminal. Yet non-blocking I/O behavior varies wildly between
terminals and everything else...
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:54:13AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
>
> > BTW: OSF/1 aka DEC-Unix aka Tru64-Unix did somthing like Linux +
> > udevd(8) over 10 years ago.
>
> Another reason to think that it's likely worth trying.
So did SGI, and it was a disaster. If you're going to break the common
Uni
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:25:06PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> I don't think it has to be or should be in the kernel. Basically,
> /dev/dk3 gets created or is used by the kernel. A daemon is notified
> (*cough* udevd) and that scans the device properties, finds the UUID and
> creates /dev
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:50:41AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> > And now anyone who can jack around with the userspace daemon process
> > can cause you to mount a filesystem you didn't intend to mount.
>
> Anyone who can meddle with a root-run process can do a lot worse than
> that (to start with, m
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:57:49PM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
>
> This is already a problem with dkctl.
I can disable dkctl and rely on the kernel's autodiscovery of wedges.
> And anyway, jacking around with the
> userspace daemon is unnecessarily complicated: if you have sufficient access
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:45:09PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > I want to be able to tell the kernel to mount a device reliably identified
> > by some kind of unique, symbolic name. I want to be able
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:58:43PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> >
> > That's a matter for the kernel to decide -- not one for some userspace
> > program which could be tampered with by any process
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:59:23PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> - I want to prevent access to the device completely by not providing a device
> node.
> - I want to preserve those changes across boots.
These two are traditionally a source of real problems for devfs or
arrangements like it.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:18:10PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> Please do not even think about using downloads as a measure of which
> ports are used and how much they are used!
>
> That's a completely invalid measurement of how NetBSD might be used.
No kidding. We'll ship thousands of units
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:55:22PM +, Sad Clouds wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:28:21 +0100
> Vlad Galu wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Sad Clouds
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:01:28 +
> > > Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do you have a real world use for th
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:20:28AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:30:15PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> > But bogus justifications involving who downloads what built
> > binary releases from the FTP server are not really helpful to anyone.
>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:07:51AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:20:28AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:30:15PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >
> > > But bogus justifications involving who downloads what bui
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 03:14:57PM -0500, David Young wrote:
>
> Regardless of what we do or do not do with sun2 et cetera, TNF could buy
> some ARM and MIPS boards for developers. ARM and MIPS boards, however,
> are not so precious as a sun2. In fact, they're abundant, and cheap.
> Nevertheless
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:11:08PM -0500, David Young wrote:
>
> I guess that it depends on your application whether these boards are
> "useful" or not, but these places sell inexpensive boards that have
> more-or-less open architecture/documentation:
>
> www.embeddedarm.com
> www.openplug.org
>
and
less goodies.
Even the very bottom of the line parts typically still have multiple
GigE interfaces on them and various other highly useful stuff.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:30:43PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> Cavium and Raza (Now "NetLogic") both have low-core-count parts in
> the way sub-$100 price range. Same basic architecture as the big
> parts (these aren't their cut-down 32-bit parts), just le
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 05:32:28PM +0200, Mateusz Kocielski wrote:
>
> As a part of my work I would like to write a translator for C language and a
> small library. Their goal would be to detect integer overflows, stack
> overflows,
> problems with static array indexing, etc (when such occur duri
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:35:47PM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:40:12PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >> As a part of my work I would like to write a translator for C
> >> language and a small library. Their goal would be to detect
> >
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 08:53:12PM +0200, Mateusz Kocielski wrote:
> 2010/3/20 Thor Lancelot Simon :
> > What is the benefit of this when compared to existing static-analysis
> > tools such as Coverity Scan, splint, or the Clang static analyzer? ?Will
> > this cover any cas
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 09:25:25PM -0700, STEPHEN JONES, W0TTY wrote:
> Is it possible to force a serial console for the install kernel
> available in
> ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-5.0.2/*/binary/kernel/netbsd-
> INSTALL.gz ?
>
> At the boot prompt defining consdev does not seem to ha
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 03:05:18AM +0200, Darren Reed wrote:
> Mateusz,
>
> Now that NetBSD has dtrace (FBT) for the kernel, have you thought
> about how you might use write mode in dtrace to simulate failure?
>
> Is there value in introducing specific dtrace probes (once we have
> SDT probes) to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:38:05AM +, John Klos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if this a problem with the motherboard I'm using or with
> NetBSD, but here goes anyway. I have an MSI MS-7511 amd64 motherboard
> which has a form of hardware RAID on the motherboard. However, after
> using it f
On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 09:31:21AM +0200, pif.paf@volny.cz wrote:
>
> when I killed all routing daemons and write all routes as static,
> problem continue.
No surprise there. Only one processor at a time can run in the NetBSD
network stack -- for now.
Thor
re any chance you could implement thread support for
the older version of GDB currently in the NetBSD tree?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 04:02:02PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> It's probably not all that big a job to backport my change to GDB 6.x.
> For that matter, anyone else can do that once I contribute the change to
> the current GDB.
Actually, there's another problem. If you contribute copyright in
could post the diffs along
> with the kernel proposal.
That would be fantastic. I hope you can eventually make that version of
the diff available under a license compatible with either GPLv2 or a
BSD-style license, just to clear up any ambiguity.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
Has anyone got an example of a secmodel other than the default 44bsd
model that I could look at?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 03:47:07PM -0600, Sverre Froyen wrote:
>
> #define MEXTMALLOC(m, size, how)
> do {
> (m)->m_ext_storage.ext_buf =
> (void *)malloc((size), mbtypes[(m)->m_type], (how));
> ...
>
> with a single malloc looks like it would be contiguous but probably slo
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:38:37PM -0600, Sverre Froyen wrote:
> On Wed April 7 2010 15:54:49 Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't this memory need to be dma-safe?
>
> It does. I assume it needs to be contiguous and properly aligned, which
> malloc(9) seems t
I just confused myself considerably because this config file fragment
didn't work:
no options SECMODEL_BSD44
options SECMODEL_OVERLAY
It turns out these kernel options (in sys/conf/std) have *lowercase* names.
Why? Shouldn't I change them?
--
Thor Lanc
I'm trying to make secmodel_overlay work in my netbsd-5 tree. It appears
to have never been adapted when secmodel_securelevel was split out of
secmodel_bsd44.
I cannot understand how secmodel_bsd44 arranges that secmodel_securelevel
will not see requests unless secmodel_bsd44 arranges to pass the
e code which should be corrected?
I'm not sure I grasp how things like the filesystem or device scopes could
even really work if you can't make kauth calls with locks held.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are con
; security model pretty easy.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 09:31:12AM -0600, Sverre Froyen wrote:
> On Sun April 11 2010 12:40:45 David Young wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:49:48PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > > would you try this variant? it handles the case where MEXTMALLOC()
> > > would fail to allocate external storag
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 04:30:23PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> In my tree, I've changed bus_space_tag_t from an integer type to a
> pointer to a struct. Now, some debugging code in MI drivers will not
> compile because it tries to printf bus_space_tag_t's using the format
> "%x".
>
> I don't see
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 01:33:04PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > custom protocol built directly atop Ethernet (ie, not IP-based).
>
> At a previous company (about 13 years back) this is what we
> did. The details are hazy now but we didn't change the gdb
> remote protocol; we just emulated a seria
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:47:36AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 05:57:55PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > IPKDB used a custom MD5-based packet hash for "security". I actually
> > think it would probably be very easy to support a sing
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:02:18PM +0300, Jordan Gordeev wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> IPKDB used a custom MD5-based packet hash for "security". I actually
>> think it would probably be very easy to support a single IPsec ESP
>> security association inste
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:07:43PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:25:59 +
> Andrew Doran wrote:
>
> > This is mainly down the fact that we need kernel_lock to bracket "legacy"
> > sections of code that aren't preemption safe. I think MULTIPROCESSOR
> > should be sent o
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 04:09:30AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>
> i ran a bunch of measurements for sparc64 when i changed GENERIC to be
> MP by default (it's necessary for now, until we parse the numa-like
> memory maps and avoid memory not available without depending on the CPU
> it is physical
's safe to clean them up
because the previously attached application exited or crashed. So
they just accumulate, like stale SysV IPC objects, wasting inodes...
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot pres
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:59:18AM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:55:51 -0400
> Thor Simon wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
> > sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
> > produces "second socket
to do that, wouldn't it be easier to just go the Linux route
> and move them into a separate (virtual) namespace completely?
Linux does that? I ran this test program on a Linux system and got a
socket in the filesystem and the same results.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 10:56:22PM +0530, Cherry G. Mathew wrote:
>
> Briefly, there are two methods to play with this now.
>
> >From dom0:
>
> # xm mem-set $domid $newmemsz
>
> or, from within the domU
>
> # sysctl -w kern.xen.balloon.target=$newtargetinpages
How does one control, from the d
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 08:34:31AM +0530, Cherry G. Mathew wrote:
>
> use 'xm mem-set' command as mentioned above.
This overrides 'sysctl -w kern.xen.balloon.target=$newtargetinpages'
from within the DomU, I hope? That is, the DomU can't ask for more
memory than has been mem-set for it on the Do
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 01:57:30PM +0530, Cherry G. Mathew wrote:
> >
> > How would you stop the domU being able to increase its memory size (e.g. on
> > a hosted service, you wouldn't want the client taking more resources than
> > they've paid for)?
> >
>
> There are no such limits by design at t
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:12:57PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > >
> > > No comments on this last version.
> >
> > Some of us scarcely have had time to reply to the second version. :-/
>
> It was enough time for code review. I thought, the way how it works
> was clear after the discussion of t
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:03:06PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Thursday 08 July 2010 14:33:12 Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:12:57PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > > > No comments on this last version.
> > > >
> >
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 02:30:46PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
>
> Shall it be added for all other archs then? I assume that they can all
> benefit from the dynamic sysctl(9) interface?
You can't do it for existing OIDs, that breaks binary compatibility.
Thor
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 03:43:06PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > [OpenBSD] commit message:
> >
> > Fix a 16 year old bug in the sorting routine for non-contiguous netmasks.
>
> I suggest removing support fo
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:15:58PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46:16 -0400 (EDT) der Mouse
> wrote:
> > The reason was exactly this: growing the space without renumbering
> > when the original space's pair had alreayd been allocated
> > elsewhere. Was it necessary? No
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:23:59AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
>
> A quick look shows that this could be the SCSI_SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE_10
> (BTW, this means that right now, no cache sync is done for ciss I guess),
> which can be worked around with the PQUIRK_NOSYNCCACHE quirk.
> sd_getcache()/sd_setc
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:41:30PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > Is there a way to open a directory on which you have neither read nor
> > write access (maybe not even search access) ?
>
> I've thought for some time there sbould be an O_NOACCESS, to open
> things without any ability to do I/O. The
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:05:52AM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
>
> Hello. I submitted a couple of patches for kern/40018, hardware
> checksum failures on bge(4) controlled chips, which fix the problem. These
Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. I would not trust these changes
unless they h
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:08:02PM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. I've tested on the following variants from that list:
>
> BCM5704
> BCM5706 or 5714
> BCM5750 or BCM5721
Unfortunately, the 5700 and 5701 are the ones with really buggy checksum
computation. I can sen
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 08:24:25PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
>
> however think that signature verification would provide more than only
> key to vendor mapping, as it could prevent loading of untrusted code.
So can one bit in a datastructure. There are plenty of good reasons to
want RSA suppor
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 02:01:02PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> Are there known kernel network interface incompatibilities between
> netbsd-4 and netbsd-5?
A buffer overrun in the interface ioctl code was fixed, and some formerly
working but technically incorrect programs that used to work stop
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:40:21PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>
> We trust modules at the time when they're installed into the trusted
> place, same as kernel itself. I think prohibiting module load at
> run-time is rather pointless.
"The trusted place"? What's that? Except in the single s
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:53:52PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > Hmm, what do you think about this feature?
> > > Only available in INSECURE environment?
>
> > We trust modules at the time when they're installed into the trusted
> > place, same as kernel itself. I think prohibiting module loa
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 01:08:05AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>
> I read it as:
>
> a) module_listener_cb() checks the 2nd arg, if autoload, judge the auth
> as "allow"
>
> b) secmodel_securelevel_system_cb() denies the auth if (securelevel >
> 0) regardless of autoload
b) here sho
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:03:58AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > If we should I'll enable options INSECURE by default on ports
> > > that require options MODULAR (to save kernel file size).
> >
> > Do not do that. You will introduce a significant security regression
> > just for your own conv
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:51:52AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
>
> I'm just asking if "options INSECURE is mandaory to use autoloading,"
> not module/autoloading is secure/silly/boo or not.
No. As far as I can tell, there's a bug in the relevant kauth listener,
at least in terms of the original
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:17:47PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, David Holland wrote:
>
>> > And also make the "blessed" directory itself immutable? :)
>>
>> As I recall the semantics of immutable are such that this isn't
>> necessary to protect modules that are present at boot
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:28:42PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
>
> I may be missing your point but there are other ways of sabotaging
> the securelvel mechanism without kernel modules available. It doesn't
> seem like a new problem to me. A more obvious way to be mischievous
> for sure but not ne
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 07:56:22PM -0700, Gary Thorpe wrote:
>
> Would it be useful to use digital signatures with kernel modules and
> have the user decide which signatures are "trusted" (including the
> options of accepting any or unsigned modules [all])? Is it infeasible,
> too hard or not very
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:04:59PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:58:19 -0400
> Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> > 2) Finish the asymmetric operation support in cryptodev and
> >actually require modules to be signed. This is basically a
>
? With which devices, and can they still be
purchased?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once."-Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:36PM -0700, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> hello. Just following up to see if anyone else has tried these
> patches and found any troubl with them? I believe all reports thus far
> have been favorable.
I can do this, but not today.
Thor
n't
best left MD). For example, we used to have a lot of pmaps in our
tree that sort of treated the whole world like a 68K MMU.
Performance has not been so great. And besides, what -are- you going
to do, in an MI way, about synchronization against hardware lookup?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:05:34PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On Fri Nov 12 2010 at 15:25:04 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > >Freeway design is not driven by the requirements of the horse. If a horse
> > >occasionally wants to gallop down a freeway, we're happy to let it as long
> > >as it do
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 01:58:59PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> VAX support (and for that matter, pdp11 support) is still part of gcc-current.
Yes, because a NetBSD developer brought it back to life!
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
le -- not less.
Given that, I can't see the benefit to removing one particular use of
atomic CAS in our kernel -- and I can see a great deal of reason _not_ to
prohibit MI code from creating more.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
&q
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:35:32PM +, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>
> While support for other platforms are not being dropped, there does seem
> to be an implicit assumption that everyone is running on x86 (or more
> specifically
pin_exit with the spin lock not
> appearing to be held (I actually set and clear a bit to indicate if the
> mutex is held, in addition to bumping the IPL).
This *does* seem like a bug.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"We canno
nderstand it. Which may be wrong.
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:04:50PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> Doh! Stupid of me. I just realized how mutexes can be taken without ever
> passing through mutex_enter or mutex_vector_enter, even if they are
> defined. We also have mutex_tryenter, which cannot be redefined.
So make it so
stem right now?
On i386? With netbsd-5?
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
rious
design and implemenation problems with the current MP profiling have
turned up, but nothing that looks like it _should_ cause the degree of
lossage we saw, so...)
--
Thor Lancelot Simont...@rek.tjls.com
"We cannot usually in social life pursu
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:52:38PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Thanks, I'll use your list as a starting point. One question though:
>
> On Wed Nov 24 2010 at 00:16:37 +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > - build.sh on a static, unchanging source tree.
>
> >From the SSP discussion I have a recollectio
quot; but it's not exactly easy to prove it. It is very
different to control this test so that it actually measures even a small
set of variables at a time, and all too many of the variables have nothing
to do with changes to NetBSD at all.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:13:54PM -0500, Thor Simon wrote:
>
> * The MCOUNT macro is cleaned up to an inline function on
> architectures which define PROFILE_TASTEFUL_FUNCTIONS. The idea is
> to eventually eliminate the macro.
As Damon noted, the version in the patch names
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 03:09:03PM +0100, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> Have you used a MegaRAID recently with 5.1?
>
> I have a similar performance issue with an AMI MegaRAID SCSI 320 without
> write cache. On a RAID5 of 4 73GB disks I get about 6MB/s write speed.
> Until recently I believed that th
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 03:00:37PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> I'm curious why non-kernel components would care.
Fat pointers.
Thor
nd 60 - 70
> MB/s. This strengthens the suspicion that write caching isn?t working.
That, or the firmware does not pass reads around cached writes as it
flushes cached writes out to the disk. This would be a pretty typical
cheap-firmware "programmer tim
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:01:34AM +, David Laight wrote:
>
> The disklabel describes the partition layout of the disk (not the type
> 169 mbr partition), it has to be saved on the disk.
>
> Saving it is ALL the partitions (and, IIRC, anywhere else it manages to find
> a copy!) avoids confusio
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 01:14:37PM +, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > But this is potentially very dangerous, in combination with
> > COMPAT_386BSD_MBRPART, because FreeBSD considers labels to be per-"slice"
> > (per fdisk-partition) and uses the 0x165 partition type. So if we are not
> > very ca
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 02:36:04PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >
> > What then happens is very stupid. The driver calls
> > mpt_set_initial_config() in mpt.c which resets every 16 target device
> > pages to 0:
If we are not exposing these underlying target device pages as sd, then
you are right
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 05:07:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
>
> Are *our* ancient disklabels partition-relative? It's so long ago that
> I'm not sure... but the code in currently in disklabel(8) doesn't appear
> to know anything at all about partition-relative labels.
They are not. This was a
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 04:58:16AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:07:13PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> > Of course, still better would be to fix vnd, though I'm not sure what
> > the right fix would be.
>
> What's the problem? My vague understanding was that you could get
1 - 100 of 617 matches
Mail list logo
