In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "M. Warner Losh" wrote:
: > : > : + if (sops)
: > : > : + free(sops, M_SEM);
: > : >
: > : > The kernel free() groks free(NULL, M_FOO), so the if isn't needed.
: > :
: > : Wow. That's bogus. It
While running 'time nice +10 make -j4 buildkernel KERNCONF=JYOUNGLP', the
compile process eventually grinds to a halt. The compiler wedges in state
'ufs' according to top (I keep it running while reproducing the issue) and
ctrl-T. After the compile process freezes, anytime I try to start
something
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-20 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() ]
> > BSD/OS arranges kernel-only MD headers better by not putting them in
> > . This also inhibits them being abused in MI code.
>
> Wh
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
"M. Warner Losh" wrote:
> : > : + if (sops)
> : > : + free(sops, M_SEM);
> : >
> : > The kernel free() groks free(NULL, M_FOO), so the if isn't needed.
> :
> : Wow. That's bogus. It should panic.
>
> It isn't bogus. free(NULL) is defined to be OK in ansi-c. The kernel
> just mi
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to apply the following patch to link groff
> statically so as to unbreak the alpha world while the binutils
> maintainer figures out why ld is broken?
>
> Index: Makefile
>
* De: Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-20 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() ]
> BSD/OS arranges kernel-only MD headers better by not putting them in
> . This also inhibits them being abused in MI code.
What do they do, MACHINE_ARCH/MACHINE_ARCH/header.h
The following ports are among those broken by KSE changes. They need
to be fixed before 5.0-RELEASE. Who can help with this?
http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/m3gdb-4.17.log
http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/blimitd-0.1_1.log
http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/jailutils-0.
I successfully built an i386 miniinst.iso image, using a repository
updated around mid-day Saturday (California time). When I burned and
booted this image, I landed in sysinstall (yay!) with a dialog box
complaining "Couldn't create directory /tmp: Read-only file system"
(d'oh!).
There's a number
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 06:40:53PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to apply the following patch to link groff
> statically so as to unbreak the alpha world while the binutils
> maintainer figures out why ld is broken?
Committed.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hello all,
I got ipfw2 apparently working on my sparc64 box. I simply added
new fields in the structure of the rules to avoid the evil casting.
Of course, it breaks the ABI, so ipfw(8) must be rebuilt. Also,
this may be considered bloat since I didn't use unions or anything,
but I think
Just got this from a 17th October kernel, it does not look like it's been
reported before.
lock order reversal
1st 0xc21f5250 vnode interlock (vnode interlock) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c:945
2nd 0xc0409e80 vm page queue mutex (vm page queue mutex) @
/usr/src/sys/vm/vm_kern.c:424
Gavin
T
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 07:53:46PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:08:07PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > The single one -CURRENT vs. -STABLE difference that causes many easy to
> > > fix breakages is really gcc.
> > ...
> > > and not ever
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
14 matches
Mail list logo