On 07.09.2019 01:08, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I could backport LSan/LLVM for NetBSD-9 if there would be a request.
> However before that I would prefer to address the mentioned
> false-positive from the atexit(3) callback. I have originally
> rescheduled it for NetBSD-10.
I spent some time on LSa
Updating src tree:
P src/crypto/external/bsd/openssh/dist/sshd.c
P src/lib/libc/stdio/fflush.3
P src/lib/libc/sys/brk.2
P src/share/man/man3/dirent.3
P src/share/man/man4/tty.4
P src/sys/arch/aarch64/aarch64/db_machdep.c
P src/sys/arch/aarch64/aarch64/genassym.cf
P src/sys/arch/aarch64/aarch64/pm
This is an automatically generated notice of a NetBSD-current/i386
build failure.
The failure occurred on babylon5.netbsd.org, a NetBSD/amd64 host,
using sources from CVS date 2019.09.07.22.56.47.
An extract from the build.sh output follows:
case COPY: /* o: copying bytes in wi
m...@netbsd.org writes:
[snip]
>> The module has to load before zvols will show up and if that is ALL you
>> were doing, I don't think anything else will prompt the loading of the
>> module. That is, your /dev/zvol/* tree would not be there unless you
>> execute the zfs (and probably the zpool)
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 06:37:31AM -0400, Brad Spencer wrote:
> m...@netbsd.org writes:
>
> > when asking for reviews on diffs, please consider having them in an easy
> > to view format, rather than tar files.
> >
> > Having a 'zfs' script to load a module sounds wrong. We have module
> > autoload
m...@netbsd.org writes:
> when asking for reviews on diffs, please consider having them in an easy
> to view format, rather than tar files.
>
> Having a 'zfs' script to load a module sounds wrong. We have module
> autoloading for this purpose.
Thanks for the comments...
Ya, there are two purpose
when asking for reviews on diffs, please consider having them in an easy
to view format, rather than tar files.
Having a 'zfs' script to load a module sounds wrong. We have module
autoloading for this purpose.
