Re: cron(8): add '@' interval time specifier

2021-07-11 Thread Todd C . Miller
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:54:51 -, Job Snijders wrote: > > > I borrowed the idea from FreeBSD's cron [1]. A difference between > > > the below changeset and the freebsd implementation is that they > > > specify the interval in seconds, while the below specifies in > > > minutes. > > > > Why be

Re: Add f_modify and f_process callbacks to FIFO filterops

2021-07-11 Thread Todd C . Miller
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 14:27:00 -, Visa Hankala wrote: > This patch adds f_modify and f_process callbacks to FIFO event filters. > The general idea is the same as with sockets, discussed in thread > "Add f_modify and f_process callbacks to socket filterops" on tech@. > > I think it is best to

ddb trace: fix output for too many arguments

2021-07-11 Thread Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
Hi, When printing a trace from ddb, some architectures are limited by the number of registers which are used to pass arguments. If the number of arguments to a function exceeded this number, the code in db_stack_trace_print() would print that many arguments without any indication that one or

Re: Do not spin on the NET_LOCK() in kqueue

2021-07-11 Thread Visa Hankala
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 05:26:57PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > One of the reasons for the drop of performances in the kqueue-based > poll/select is the fact that kqueue filters are called up to 3 times > per syscall and that they all spin on the NET_LOCK() for TCP/UDP > packets. > > Diff

Add f_modify and f_process callbacks to FIFO filterops

2021-07-11 Thread Visa Hankala
This patch adds f_modify and f_process callbacks to FIFO event filters. The general idea is the same as with sockets, discussed in thread "Add f_modify and f_process callbacks to socket filterops" on tech@. I think it is best to add the callbacks now, before further changes to socket locking.

Re: vmd(8): simplify vcpu logic, removing uart & net reads

2021-07-11 Thread Dave Voutila
Ping...looking for OK. Would like to get this committed this week. Dave Voutila writes: > Looking for an OK for this one now. Anyone? > > Dave Voutila writes: > >> Dave Voutila writes: >> >>> Looking for some broader testing of the following diff. It cleans up >>> some complicated logic