on 16/09/2011 23:59 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> in which case the current notifier-based architecture is broken. You
> may want to have a soft-watchdog triggering after 5s, and a fallback
> hardware watchdog triggering after 60s.
So let's start with the real problem, FreeBSD watchdog infr
On 18 Sep 2011 20:31, "Arnaud Lacombe" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp
wrote:
> > In message <
cacqu3mvf5mwqec+s9vkk4mljenmos9q_bjwkbyefzabfjo6...@mail.gmail.com>
> > , Arnaud Lacombe writes:
> >
> >>I do not really care actually, but the manpage is wrong, an
.. just a note:
people who in your situation keep filing PRs, fixing bugs and hounding
committers with tested, correct fixes - end up getting commit bits.
:-)
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
In message
, Arnaud Lacombe writes:
>>>I do not really care actually, but the manpage is wrong, and the code
>>>needlessly complicated.
>>
>> As I said: Feel free to improve.
>>
>How can I expect anything to get through, when I cannot even get an
>obvious use-after-free in the ipfw code fixed aft
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message
>
> , Arnaud Lacombe writes:
>
>>I do not really care actually, but the manpage is wrong, and the code
>>needlessly complicated.
>
> As I said: Feel free to improve.
>
How can I expect anything to get through, when I can
In message
, Arnaud Lacombe writes:
>I do not really care actually, but the manpage is wrong, and the code
>needlessly complicated.
As I said: Feel free to improve.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message
>
> , Arnaud Lacombe writes:
>
>>I just had a look to the way the timeout specified to watchdogd is
>>passed to the kernel. watchdogd(8) says:
>
> The API was designed for simplicity, not precision.
>
> Watchdog hardware
In message
, Arnaud Lacombe writes:
>I just had a look to the way the timeout specified to watchdogd is
>passed to the kernel. watchdogd(8) says:
The API was designed for simplicity, not precision.
Watchdog hardware often have weird and strange limitations on the
actual values you can set.
A v
Hi,
I just had a look to the way the timeout specified to watchdogd is
passed to the kernel. watchdogd(8) says:
The -t timeout specifies the desired timeout period in seconds. The
default timeout is 16 seconds.
So as a dumb user, I would expect `-t 30' to set the timeout to 30s.
You c
