On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
More of a dmesg would help debug this.
Sure, full boot -v and pciconf -lv follows. -CURRENT is from
right before KSE-III went in.
To my untrained eye, the pcib1:
device wi0 requested unsupported memory range 0x0-0xf41f
looks suspect. How
On 5 Jul 2002, Vladimir B. Grebenschikov wrote:
May be same mechanism as hints, like:
hint.sio.0.mode=0622
As long as we are throwing out ideas: Aside from the fact that
it's broken and at the moment wouldn't exactly DTRT, I always
figured a type of mount_unionfs() with the older filesystem
I've got a Linksys WMP11 wireless PCI card. It is recognized under
-STABLE, but not -CURRENT.
wi_alloc() seems to fail at bus_alloc_resource() while requesting
I/O memory. I'm not familiar with this part of the code, so I'm
sure what actually gets called in this case. Does this sound
familiar
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
However, before proceeding I would like to get an advice with regard
to the most appropriate procedure for doing the upgrade.
This came up in another list somewhere (don't know off hand), but
you might also consider having tar wrap around pax.
OpenBSD
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Dima Dorfman wrote:
How about fixing ls(1) to output the numeric mode if asked to?
That's good, but while you're at it you'd probably want to get
*everything* out of (struct stat) and print it numerically (device,
flags, atime since epoch, etc.) You could do this in
OK, here's a patch to fstat(1) which adds an -s option to stat(2)
a list of files on the command line. It's against -STABLE but
should still apply to -CURRENT. Comments are appreciated.
The only other addition I would like to have is have -n option
display everything numericaly as it does
Hi,
Here's the final fstat(1) patch which obeys the '-n' switch.
Inodes have a lot on info, so the output is very long. Please nit
pick on the code, including any style(9) violations you see.
Bakul, I really like your stat -a because the output is compact,
but it's not as readable. /me
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-05-18 23:11, Benjamin P. Grubin wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
[ The above should print in stdout just 01777 as a number. ]
...
Does anyone know of any other (possibly more elegant way) of
reading the numeric value of the
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Oliver Fromme wrote:
I'm wondering why /bin/df is set-gid to the operator group
by default.
It's to df filesystems that aren't mounted. Try "df /dev/ad0s1a" (or
whatever) as user nobody with chmod 555 /bin/df.
-Paul.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Paul Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Oliver Fromme wrote:
I'm wondering why /bin/df is set-gid to the operator group
by default.
It's to df filesystems that aren't mounted. Try "df /dev/ad0s1a" (or
Sorry to follow up on my own mail...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Paul Herman wrote:
This brings up a slightly related question: Now that block
devices have been abolished, wouldn't it be a good idea to get rid
of the quick mount(2)/umount(2) of /tmp/df.XX to stat the file
system?
I see now
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
In FreeBSD, mount privilege is controlled by the vfs.usermount
sysctl (default: off), so df must still be setgid operator to work
on devices.
The mount() method is better because can work on work on all types
of filesystems that the kernel
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
I received the patch to add counter for fork() set from Paul. I've
tested it on my -CURRENT and -STABLE boxes, and it seems fine for me.
So, I post his patch for review.
I do have a change (I knew I forgot something.)
This is exactly the same
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
bright * Hajimu UMEMOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010115 10:00] wrote:
I wish to obtain number of processes forked since boot from userland.
So, I made a patch to intend to commit.
Any comment?
I like the idea, but this belongs in vmeter with context
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:46:32 +0100 (CET)
Paul Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
pherman I like the idea, but this belongs in vmeter with context switches,
pherman page faults, etc, doesn't it? This is how OpenBSD does it, anyway.
I see.
You mean
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
I'm going from a fresh install of 4.1-RELEASE - 4.1-STABLE, or, at least,
trying to ... and I'm building the kernel as 'make buildkernel' ...
cc -c -x assembler-with-cpp -DLOCORE -O -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Wstrict-prototypes
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Vivek Khera wrote:
"BE" == Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BE revision 1.9
BE date: 1997/06/25 07:31:47; author: joerg; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
BE Don't ever allow lowering the securelevel at all. Allowing it does
BE nothing good except of opening a can of
Hi,
Here is a patch which will allow init(8) (or rather, any process with
PID 1) to lower the securelevel to 0 when going into single-user
maintenence mode. This has no effect if securelevel is -1.
Feedback welcome -- there may be security implications I'm not aware
of. If this is well
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Zach N. Heilig wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 06:33:20PM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
Here is a patch which will allow init(8) (or rather, any process with
PID 1) to lower the securelevel to 0 when going into single-user
maintenence mode. This has no effect
Hi,
[ Bcc'ed to -current ]
Perhaps it was a mistake :) but I took up someone else's cause and
started a thread on -current which now probably belongs on -hackers.
So:
What are the dangers of having init lower the securelevel to 0 when
the system goes into single user? Looking at the
Hi,
Has anyone else noticed that -CURRENT is a bit "jumpy"? I notice for
example when simply typing commands prompt that the process will
"stick" or "hang" only for about 100-200ms or so and then come back to
life. The system is otherwise idle (happens also in single-user.)
It's -CURRENT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that -CURRENT is a bit "jumpy"? I notice for
It's probably the new /dev/random implementation. It's being worked on.
What makes you say that? Are you seeing the problem
Hi,
(Posting to current, because of similar problems to the "Mouse
behaving funny since 5.0-CURRENT upgrade" thread)
My moused is also behaving funny (no X). Sometimes other charaters on
the screen get messed up where the pointer never was (I can't seem to
reliably reproduce it), but one thing
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Paul Herman wrote:
When both the prompt and the mouse are at the bottom of the screen,
then moused starts eating up interrupt CPU.
It has something to do with this whole Yarrow thing. I suppose Yarrow
(and dev/urandom
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vadim Belman writes:
I mostly agree, but let's put it other way. A rare situation with a
local network with no external connection, no NTP servers. Just a server(s)
plus several clients. At least some of the
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Pascal Hofstee wrote:
Since a recent update of my CURRENT system i get weird coredumps from at
least two applications which just worked fine previously. The two programs
are tintin++ (mud-client) ... and licq (when trying to set myself to
"away-mode").
Just a wild
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [2709 21:20], Leif Neland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
These messages are infected with the kak virus. See
http://www.cai.com/virusinfo/encyclopedia/descriptions/wscript.htm
Am I the only one to NOT see this?
Probably not. It
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Blaz Zupan wrote:
this number is completely useless to me. I have to agree with Sheldon, where
is the use to this number?
Think about doing something like
$ df -c/disk0 /disk1 /disk2 ... /diskX
To
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:26:00 -0400, Brian Hechinger wrote:
beancounters don't understand that computers can have more than one disk let
alone multiple slices. so it gives a nice total number to slap into a pie
chart so that you can
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2000 at 06:09:54PM +0200, Paul Herman wrote:
Naturally, "no reason not to put it in" is most certainly *not* a
reason to put it in. I would like to hear some to sway me one way or
the other.
[...]
[hawk-billf] /
30 matches
Mail list logo
