,

=?GB2312?B?INCnufvNvA==?= To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/html; Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:26:04 +0800 X-Priority: 3 X-Library: Caretop Library X-Mailer: Caretop 2604 HTML HEAD STYLE BODY { COLOR: #99; FONT-FAMILY: ËÎÌå, Trebuchet MS, Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; MARGIN-LEFT:

´ë´ÜÈ÷ °¨»çÇÕ´Ï´Ù....

Title: Casinoever.com ¡Ø Çã¶ô¾øÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏ º¸³½Á¡ »ç°úµå¸³´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏÀº À¥¼­ÇÎÁß ¹«ÀÛÀ§·Î ÃßÃâµÈ Áּҷμ­

,

=?GB2312?B?INCnufvNvA==?= To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:24:09 +0800 X-Priority: 3 X-Library: Caretop Library X-Mailer: Caretop 2604 ͼÎÄÉè¼ÆÓ¡Ë¢£¬ÍøÒ³Éè¼Æ£¬ÆóÒµÐû´«Æ¬£¬Ó°ÊÓÖÆ×÷, Ч¹ûͼ ¶àýÌå¹âÅÌ£¬Èýά¶¯»­£¬·ÇÏßÐԱ༭ϵͳ£¬¹âÅÌ¿Ìѹ

,

=?GB2312?B?INCnufvNvA==?= To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:23:53 +0800 X-Priority: 3 X-Library: Caretop Library X-Mailer: Caretop 2604 ͼÎÄÉè¼ÆÓ¡Ë¢£¬ÍøÒ³Éè¼Æ£¬ÆóÒµÐû´«Æ¬£¬Ó°ÊÓÖÆ×÷, Ч¹ûͼ ¶àýÌå¹âÅÌ£¬Èýά¶¯»­£¬·ÇÏßÐԱ༭ϵͳ£¬¹âÅÌ¿Ìѹ

Re: mach-defpager/serverboot changes (tmpfs too)

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:53:09PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 08:38:37PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote: I don't expect that anyone is still using serverboot since we've had boot script support in the kernel for a while now. I have been actively recommending

zealous use of error

Hi, Here is my patch that is overzealous in the use of error ;) I didn't touch any code that was copyrighted UC Berkeley or CMU, nor did I touch any code that didn't compile already. This patch includes the previous patch because they are related. I changed symlink so that it checks the

Re: make check

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 07:52:08AM -0800, James Morrison wrote: I'm curious what types of checks would be in a make check target for the hurd. Would have to be run in a sub-hurd to test all the hurd translators and libc functions? Should the test programs be compiled within that test

Re: make check

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 07:52:08AM -0800, James Morrison wrote: I'm curious what types of checks would be in a make check target for the hurd. Would have to be run in a sub-hurd to test all the hurd translators and libc functions? Should the test programs be compiled within that test

Re: zealous use of error

James A Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: init: * init.c (reboot_mach): Use err, not errno. (run): Likewise. (lauch_core_servers): Likewise. (run_for_real): Check against MACH_PORT_NULL instead of not(!) for failure. (start_child): Likewise. It's

Re: zealous use of error

James Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Previously netfs_make_protid set errno, no matter what. So to keep this behaviour the patch would look like this. There is no need to always set errno (though you should check all the callers to make sure--which needed to be done first anyway).

Re: two bugs in libio environment

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:04:46PM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Sometimes creating a file fails with ENOPERM for no apparent reason. This is not reproducible, trying again creates the file just fine. (For example, gcc fails to create a tmp file, or install can not install a file). Can

Re: two bugs in libio environment

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:04:46PM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: The second bug that does not happen as often is that a program hangs without outputting anything (well, I am not sure _which_ program hangs, so it might also be in the middle of output, but only at the start of a new line).

Re: two bugs in libio environment

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:04:46PM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Sometimes creating a file fails with ENOPERM for no apparent reason. This is not reproducible, trying again creates the file just fine. (For example, gcc fails to create a tmp file, or install can not install a file). Can

Re: two bugs in libio environment

I think that fshelp_isowner in libfshelp/perms-isowner.c should be the only place making this decision. So you can hack that function to print out details when it makes a negative decision, if it's not convenient to just debug the filesystem and set a breakpoint there. There should not be any

Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord

I am pretty dubious about modifying memcpy at this point. There are a lot of different implementations in libc, and they are being further tweaked all the time. There are both assembly implementations and inline-macro implementations, and many of each for all the tiny variants of chip that

Re: zealous use of error

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: James A Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: init: * init.c (reboot_mach): Use err, not errno. (run): Likewise. (lauch_core_servers): Likewise. (run_for_real): Check against MACH_PORT_NULL instead of not(!) for

Re: zealous use of error

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ /* Run a program on the console, trying hard to get the console open. - Copyright (C) 1999, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + Copyright (C) 1999, 2001,02 Free Software Foundation, Inc. In the future, you should use more consistent spacing. + if (err)

Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord

I was thinking along the lines of changing the __memcpy's found in libc/sysdep/i386/{,i[456]86}/memcpy.S et al. to __real_memcpy and then having a libc/sysdep/mach/memcpy.c do: Eh, that's only half of it. memcpy is as likely to be inlined in the bits/string.h magic, or by the compiler. And

Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord

I called it __mach_memcpy so that we can be sure to get the vm_copy version in particular cases such as this. For pager_memcpy you'd still have to set up the fault handling around the mach_memcpy call, so it remains better for pager_memcpy to have its own check up front.