John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm experimenting with using LD_PRELOAD to implement "shim"
>> wrappers around functions in libc. The first problem I had was
>> compiling my shim library so that the rtld would accept it.
>
>The right way to do
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 03:43:16PM -0800, Ralph Seguin wrote:
> I'm having some difficulty getting APM and power
> control working in FreeBSD 3.3
> I've built a kernel with APM enabled in the config
> file and enabled it in
> rc.conf, however apmd says it's starting up, but ps
> never shows it run
Hi.
I'm having some difficulty getting APM and power
control working in FreeBSD 3.3
I've built a kernel with APM enabled in the config
file and enabled it in
rc.conf, however apmd says it's starting up, but ps
never shows it running.
>From /etc/rc.conf:
apm_enable="YES"
bash-2.03# apm -s
apm: ca
I have a new National Instruments AT-GPIB driver almost ready to go.
The code is almost a total rewrite from what I had before. It has been
ported to the newbus architecture and simplified quite a bit. It should
also be faster, both in terms of throughput of large transfers and
addressing overhe
At 1:20 AM -0800 1/15/00, Soren Schmidt wrote:
>It seems Harold Gutch wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 09:29:58AM +0100, Soren Schmidt wrote:
>> > I have it on my TODO list, but I'm not started yet, and probably wont for
>> > some time to come.
>> > The reason I've put it on the backburner for n
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm experimenting with using LD_PRELOAD to implement "shim" wrappers
> around functions in libc. It's really easy to do on Solaris but I'm
> having some difficulty on FreeBSD.
>
> The first problem I had was compiling my shi
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This brings me on to the second problem. I want to do some
> initialization of my library before the real action starts. On Solaris
> the linker calls a function in the object called _init() when it is
> loaded; it's easy to make this work. I can see simi
I'm experimenting with using LD_PRELOAD to implement "shim" wrappers
around functions in libc. It's really easy to do on Solaris but I'm
having some difficulty on FreeBSD.
The first problem I had was compiling my shim library so that the rtld
would accept it. On Solaris I can just use `gcc -c lib
I solved the problem by making a small syscall KLD get_uid_nproc that
just returns the result of
chgproccnt(SCARG(uap, uid), 0);
and by having suexec use this syscall to determine whether or not to
exec the CGI:
stat.version = sizeof(stat);
mod_id = modfind("get_uid_nproc");
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
: > There's still space on there; what else could we put there?
:
: A copy of nethack to play while you're waiting for that fsck?
:
: [ducks]
Jordan, you aren't being very #pragmaTIC about this, are you :-)
Warner
To Unsubscribe: sen
On 21/01 04:42, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > There's still space on there; what else could we put there?
>
> A copy of nethack to play while you're waiting for that fsck?
Entirely sensible suggestion. I mean, OpenBSD has hangman in the kernel
debugger. (It uses the system calls as its diction
Actually, a line like temp =t1->tv_usec + 100;
or using some other temp to save the t1 data before it is permuted will
make the program work perfectly. t1->tv_usec += 100; Kills the
correct value when t2 is updated. The another option would be to stop
using pointers in the function c
On Friday, 21 January 2000 at 4:42:34 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> There's still space on there; what else could we put there?
>
> A copy of nethack to play while you're waiting for that fsck?
Is it OK if we have the non-X version only?
Greg
--
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
>I'm the last person who you'd speak to for an authoritative answer to
a
>FreeBSD question, but I'll try fielding it.
Same here =)
What I have gathered about spinning on a lock is that it is indeed
waiting for a lock, but not sleeping so that the process doesn't get
context switches etc. and thu
> I once thought something might be wrong, and then found
> (ALT)SYSCALL_LOCK spinning to wait for the lock to be released. Now I
> am wondering if we can contribute spinning time to anything else, say
> running another process, before the lock gets released. Is is possible
> to do so?
I'm the l
>If you want a better fixit floppy, you should consider the new custom
>disk pair with PicoBSD (see picobsd(8) in -CURRENT). It includes
>everything on the old fixit floppy, also real tar and a number of
>other programs, including rsh. There's still space on there; what
>else could we put there?
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Doug White wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Matthew Reimer wrote:
> > Background: in an attempt to manage our webserver to keep too many CGIs
> > from taking down the machine, I've been experimenting with RLIMIT_NPROC.
> > This appears to work fine when forking new processes,
> There's still space on there; what else could we put there?
A copy of nethack to play while you're waiting for that fsck?
[ducks]
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Friday, 21 January 2000 at 2:27:02 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> script. The script basically translates tar commands to cpio commands,
>> which makes sense, since the cpio binary is a LOT smaller than tar. But
>> there's no cpio on the fixit floppy...
>>
>> And there's no ifconfig on
> script. The script basically translates tar commands to cpio commands,
> which makes sense, since the cpio binary is a LOT smaller than tar. But
> there's no cpio on the fixit floppy...
>
> And there's no ifconfig on the floppy either, so why even bother with
> telnet/ftp/mount_nfs?
You ne
This discussion sort of sparked my interest, so I started looking at
what exactly is on the fixit floppy. As I expected there was a load of
crunched binaries (interesting technique btw) but my eye fell on tar. It
wasn't a hardlink to the crunched binary like the others, it was a shell
script. The
I have my SMP(dual) box running -current at home for local news and
mail/ML server. Last night, when the news-mail gateway started to feed
the articles to the MLs, I noticed that the ratio of CPU time usage
for system call exceeded more than 50%, showing 55-60% every now and
then. The frequencies
>Waht I was thinking about doing, was first writting, (probably using
the
>nullfs code a a base) a userfs, that would allow me to run most of
the
>guts of the filesystem code in a user process. Then I would write the
UDF
>filesystem to run in a user process.
>What do you think, am I nuts? Is the
Do you remember this topic? I have revised the indirection support
patch. What I have changed are:
- to make diff files more readable
- introduce the bus_simple_create_bsh() that creates
a bus_space_handle_tag from a base address.
I have made PC98 GENERIC98 kernel and i386 LINT kernel a
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Matthew Reimer wrote:
> My question is, should setuid() fail if the target user's maximum number
> of processes (RLIMIT_NPROC) would be exceeded?
>
> Background: in an attempt to manage our webserver to keep too many CGIs
> from taking down the machine, I've been experimenti
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Sabrina Minshall wrote:
> What's going one here? Successive calls to gettimeofday
> yields negative elapsed time?
I'm sorry, but this is plain bad math. If the samples t1 and t2 were
taken in that order from a monotonically increasing value, then
> s = t1->tv_sec -
26 matches
Mail list logo
