In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Barton writes:
>> >The '.'s are simple and not too cluttery. Fixing the console to line buffer
>> >what it sends to log(9) is a better fix, IMO.
>>
>> I specifically decided not to do this because I want to be able to
>> see stuff like:
>>
>> echo -
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
> >>> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
> >>> your /var/log/messages.
> >>
> >> Dec 17 13:00:26 Master /boot/kernel/kernel: Doing
> >> additional network setup:
> >> Dec
Well, if you do manage to uncover the lost magic, please let me
know :)
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:41:17PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>
> I expected some build tool expert to say "Just compile with these
> options". But they haven't. So I'll see if the bits have rotted,
> or whether we can ke
On Sunday, 17th December 2000, "Donald J . Maddox" wrote:
>Under the circumstances, it seems silly to have aout conpat
>bits installed at all, seeing as how they cannot work.
Old programs that don't depend on recompiled libraries are fine. I can't
guess at the percentages though. Also, nearly
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Jeremy writes:
>
>I'm not offering code right now, but how about using a `newline or
>timeout' approach? If there's a partial line and there's been no
>console output for some number of seconds, forward the line to log(9).
I played with this, and I was not
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes:
>
>On 17-Dec-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
>> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
>> your /var/log/messages.
>>
>> Poul-Henning
>>
>>
>> 1. Replace log
>>>
>>> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
>>> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
>>> your /var/log/messages.
>>
>> Dec 17 13:00:26 Master /boot/kernel/kernel: Doing
>> additional network setup:
>> Dec 17 13:00:26 Master /boot/kernel/kernel:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
> > pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case?
>
> One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when
> follow
Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
> pointer to be NULL in the first place. Is this the case?
One example (which I don't know if that what's happening here) is when
following symbolic links. namei() calls VOP_R
On 18 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since proc can be NULL and most of the other code in nfs_socket
> handles it I do think this actually is the right thing to do.
> Comments?
I'm more concerned with whether it's actually normal for the process
pointer to be NULL in the first pl
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Grog had a similar panic on IRC the other day:
>
> >#7 0xc021c857 in nfs_msg (p=0x0, server=0xc0bf0cf2 "slave:/usr/home",
> > msg=0xc02ba748 "not responding") at
>
> The 'p' parameter is a process that is supposed to be making the request, and
> t
On 18-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote:
> I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up
> to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console
> logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that
> thankfully produced a kernel core to work w
I built -current world and kernel around 3am PST sunday morning with up
to date sources. Later that same day I added Poul-Henning's console
logging patch. Just a few minutes ago I had a lockup and panic that
thankfully produced a kernel core to work with. It looks like this is
not related
Howdy,
You beat me to it. I was just about to send a patch that did exactly the
same thing.
Regards,
Chris Knight
Systems Administrator
AIMS Independent Computer Professionals
Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795
Web: http://www.aims.com.au
> -Original Message-
Howdy,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jordan Hubbard
> Sent: Monday, 18 December 2000 10:54
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Build failure in -current
>
>
> > I've been noticing this
Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> On 2000-Dec-17 15:06:40 -0800, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote:
> >> Would there be any harm to changing the dots to something more
> >> meaningful, like "Done with additional network setup" on its own line?
> >
> >.
>
> Agree
"Chris Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just
> tried the attached patch, which works for me.
But it does only solve the problem for `make release'. Please upgrade
so that you have sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_softdep_stub.c 1.15 whi
> I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just
> tried the attached patch, which works for me.
Well, that's a fix, just not the right one. :) There should be no
"dangling references" to soft updates if SOFTUPDATES is not defined.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send m
On 2000-Dec-17 15:06:40 -0800, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote:
>> Would there be any harm to changing the dots to something more
>> meaningful, like "Done with additional network setup" on its own line?
>
>The '.'s are simple and not too cluttery.
Agreed
On 17-Dec-00 Doug Barton wrote:
> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
>> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
>> your /var/log/messages.
>
> This works spectacularly for me on a UP -current with up to date
> s
On 17-Dec-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
> your /var/log/messages.
>
> Poul-Henning
>
>
> 1. Replace logwakeup() with msgbuftrigger++; There is little
>point in ca
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:15:41PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> > This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
> > The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
> > your /var/log/messages.
>
> This works spectacularly for me on a
Howdy,
I've been noticing this on my daily builds for the last five days. I've just
tried the attached patch, which works for me.
Regards,
Chris Knight
Systems Administrator
AIMS Independent Computer Professionals
Tel: +61 3 6334 6664 Fax: +61 3 6331 7032 Mob: +61 419 528 795
Web: http://www.a
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
> The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
> your /var/log/messages.
This works spectacularly for me on a UP -current with up to date
sources. The only nit I have is that it does
sh ../../conf/newvers.sh BOOTMFS
cc -c -O -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual -fformat-extensions -ansi
-nostdinc -I- -I. -I../.. -I../../dev -I../../../include
-I../../contrib/dev/acpica/Subsystem/Include
This patch is for the printf(9), log(9) & /dev/console stuff.
The result is that you can watch the output from /etc/rc in
your /var/log/messages.
Poul-Henning
1. Replace logwakeup() with msgbuftrigger++; There is little
point in calling a function to set a flag.
2. Keep better track of th
Ok, thanks for a very enlightening explanation :)
Under the circumstances, it seems silly to have aout conpat
bits installed at all, seeing as how they cannot work.
Like you, I normally upgrade from source -- This box has
been -current ever since 2.0.5 or so was -current, but I
had to reinstall
On Saturday, 16th December 2000, "Donald J . Maddox" wrote:
>The other day, on a whim, I decided to try running an old binary
>of SimCity (the same one found in the 'commerce' directory on
>many FBSD cds), and it failed in a odd way...
You and I may be the only people in the world that run old b
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
>
> Andrzej,
>
> did you receive a response regarding your email the Pro 10/100B/100+ Ethernet> being unresponsive after running windows?
> i seem to have the same problem.
Yes and no. The answer provided by dg (I think) was that Win pow
29 matches
Mail list logo
