Re: OS X (was *BSD and Mac OS)
On Jul 1, 2004, at 20:03, Igor Shmukler wrote: Hello, Sorry for intrusion. This is not really what original argument was about. I am curious, do you (or someone else) knows what exactly was changed in Tiger in regards to fine-grained locking. I did not make to WWDC and I could not find any technical info on that. That information is not available publicly until it appears on one of Apple's web sites (e.g., as source for xnu). Those that find out about it at WWDC are bound by NDA to not divulge it. Regards, Justin -- /~\ The ASCII Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-at-Large \ / Ribbon Campaign X Help cure HTML Email / \ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: writing to RW-mounted UFS2 snapshots - confirmed.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Q wrote: This is unexpected. You can successfully mount the snapshot read/write and create and write to files in that snapshot. You can also write to files that existed in the snapshot prior to mounting it read/write. Perhaps the writing is done from a point where the schg flag is not checked or obeyed? While this may not be expected behavior, I am curious why this is something that should be prevented, rather than verified for correctness? By correct I mean, that the copy on write process is performed correctly and modifications made to the snapshot don't modify the underlying filesystem elements also. To me this has the potential to allow snapshots to be used in reverse as a sort of an undo drive, similar to unionfs, where you can make changes to a snapshot without the changes being permanently applied to the live filesystem. This might be useful for testing an upgrade or database recovery on a staging snapshot before attempting to modify the real thing. Having checked with Kirk yesterday here at USENIX, the reason this is undesirable is that he didn't intend it to work that way, and therefore hasn't written the necessary bookkeeping. I.e., while one could argue the feature should work that way, one would want it to be intentional :-). This is probably a bug in our md code, I'll try to take a look at it today sometime, now that I've pinned kirk down on how it's supposed to work. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting Standby Mode for ATA Disks
On 25 Jun 2004, at 17:51, Arne Schwabe wrote: Hi, is there a way to set the standby mode for ATA Disks Under linux hdparm -S seems to work: -S Set the standby (spindown) timeout for the drive. This value is used by the drive to determine how long to wait (with no disk activity) before turning off the spindle motor to save power. Under such circumstances, the drive may take as long as 30 sec- onds to respond to a subsequent disk access, though most drives are much quicker. The encoding of the timeout value is somewhat peculiar. A value of zero means off. Values from 1 to 240 specify multiples of 5 seconds, for timeouts from 5 seconds to 20 minutes. Values from 241 to 251 specify from 1 to 11 units of 30 minutes, for timeouts from 30 minutes to 5.5 hours. A value of 252 signifies a timeout of 21 minutes, 253 sets a ven- dor-defined timeout, and 255 is interpreted as 21 minutes plus 15 seconds. I googled but I did not found anything like this for FreeBSD :/ ATAidle (http://www.cran.org.uk/bruce/software/ataidle.php and sysutils/ataidle in ports) does this. Unfortunately due to a site redesign, the page seems to have been dropped from the google results; I'll have to add the keywords back in so it gets listed again! -- Bruce Cran ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Custom kernel syscall module data validation
Hi, hackers! I wrote a small kernel module whch impliments some syscall. Syscall takes a char * as a parameter. Theoriticaly its posible to pass a bad pointer from userland. What should I do in orde to check the pointer from userland? I use copyout(9) to store data from kernel to userland but it doesn't seams to be enough - systems got panic if I pass a bad pounter. I think I'm missing something important about kernel programming. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD and MacOS
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:01:49PM +0200, Martin Olsson wrote: Hi, * MacOS X is based on FreeBSD * there is a x86 kernel for FreeBSD Does that mean I can buy a copy of MacOS X, download an x86 kernel for freeBSD, do some (or quite alot of) hacking and then get MacOS X running on my PC? I realize that such hacking would be quite substantial but maybe if I forgot about audio and all that, just how much work would it be? Could it be done? Sincerly, Martin Olsson I think you are misunderstanding something: the kernel is not the only architecture-dependent part of an operating system. You would have to port the entire OS X, most of which is closed source. GH ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
