Don Coleman wrote:
David,
I wrote the NFS lockd code for BSD/OS (it's based on some user land
stuff Keith Bostic did, and then Kirk McKusick helped clean up my
basic design and the VFS layering for the server/kernel side).
We have an application that is desperately in need of
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
misguided.
It's
Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD? I've never
understood the point of that sort of use. It makes sense for a
QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but
how does Mach help Apple, instead of using the bottom
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 04:27:20PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Dec 16), Axel Thimm said:
Wouldn't that mean, that you might cause data corruption if, say, I was to
read my mail from a FreeBSD box over an NFS mounted spool directory
(running under OSF1 in our case), and I
Hello,
I am very keen to develop for FreeBSD, and would like to start
writing device drivers for various hardware that is unsupported.
I have some knowledge of C, and have had a good read of "The design
and Implementation of..." and bits and pieces of the kernel and driver
sources.
Does anyone
Hi,
I got hold of you driver, compiled and installed it.
After booting, I logged in as root and typed:
# kldload snd_maestro3
but this returned the following error message:
pcm0: ESS Technology Maestro3 at device 12.0 on pci0
pcm0: Unable to map i/o space
device_probe_and_attach: pcm0
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:14:07AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Patryk Zadarnowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that I think of it, there aren't many commercial microkernel
systems out there with the possible exception of QNX and lots of
little embedded toys.
Mac OS X is based on Mach.
Yes,
PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
misguided.
It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD? I've never
understood the point of that sort of use. It makes sense for a
QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but
how does Mach help
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
Kernel threads out of the box?
The Mach kernel makes use of a thread primitive and a task primitive;
however, their BSD OS personality is largely single-threaded with
something approximately equivilent to our Giant -- they refer to this as a
"Funnel",
Kernel threads out of the box?
The Mach kernel makes use of a thread primitive and a task primitive;
however, their BSD OS personality is largely single-threaded with
something approximately equivilent to our Giant -- they refer to this as a
"Funnel", through which access to the BSD code
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
PS. Before this starts a flame war, let me say that I really believe
that MacOS X is a very good thing for everyone involved, although the
choice of Mach for the microkernel seems a little arbitrary if not
misguided.
It's hardly arbitrary,
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious microkernel, if
it's only got one server: BSD? I've never understood the point of that
sort of use. It makes sense for a QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba
style of architecture, but how does
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
-- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
for configuration management (local and distributed). It probably needs
some cleaning up in the
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:27:55PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
-- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
for configuration management (local and
At 13:02 17/12/00 +, you wrote:
Does anyone have any good tips to get started / HowTo's, or some simple
examples
that will give me knowledge like the PC Speaker or something simple like
that?
This is turning into a FAQ, but don't worry about it. The usual answer is
to take one of the
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:02:56PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
That's great news -- I assume however that this is limited to the
account directory service functionality, as opposed to the more general
configuration parameters (login.conf equivs, etc)?
That's correct, at least for the near
service environment -- I've been seriously considering looking at adapting
FreeBSD to use netinfo also, given that it provides a time-tested model
for configuration management (local and distributed). It probably needs
some cleaning up in the security sense, and possibly rewriting, but it's
[This typo came from NetBSD, so in this particular source I have no
intention of changing the style.]
What do folks think about
1)if (data)
free(data);
versus
2)free(data);
versus
3)#define xfree(x) if ((x) != NULL) free(x);
xfree(data);
--
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
What do folks think about
1)if (data)
free(data);
versus
2)free(data);
versus
3)#define xfree(x) if ((x) != NULL) free(x);
xfree(data);
2. The C standard dictates that free()
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Chris Costello wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
What do folks think about
1)if (data)
free(data);
versus
2)free(data);
versus
3)#define xfree(x) if ((x) != NULL) free(x);
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Bosko Milekic wrote:
Agreed. However, in the kernel, all free()s should be made as in (1),
in my opinion. (2) is dangerous, and (3) would just obfuscate the code.
(I know this does not apply to the commit, but should be noted)
Yes, I agree; however
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:17:35PM -0600, Chris Costello wrote:
2. The C standard dictates that free() does nothing when it
gets a NULL argument.
Well, it dictates that free(NULL) is safe -- it doesn't dictate that
it ``does nothing''. Which brings me to my next comment:
The other
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
I don't blame authors of storage allocation code if they do not write
free like this:
void
free(void *p)
{
if (p == NULL)
return;
.
.
.
It would be silly to
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:36:56PM -0600, Chris Costello wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
It would be silly to optimize for freeing NULL pointers.
You mean as seen in:
[snip ifree(), which checks for a NULL pointer, first thing]
called by free():
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
I may have missed your point ... or maybe you are just agreeing with
what I wrote. For this particular implementation of free, you get the
following for `free(foo)' when foo == NULL:
function call and stack overhead for free()
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 04:04:42PM -0600, Chris Costello wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2000, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
I may have missed your point ... or maybe you are just agreeing with
what I wrote. For this particular implementation of free, you get the
following for `free(foo)'
David Preece wrote:
At 13:02 17/12/00 +, you wrote:
Does anyone have any good tips to get started / HowTo's, or some simple
examples
that will give me knowledge like the PC Speaker or something simple like
that?
This is turning into a FAQ, but don't worry about it. The usual answer
David Preece wrote:
At 13:02 17/12/00 +, you wrote:
Does anyone have any good tips to get started / HowTo's, or some simple
examples
that will give me knowledge like the PC Speaker or something simple like
that?
This is turning into a FAQ, but don't worry about it. The usual answer
I've had this idea kicking around for some time, so
I decided I would throw it out there and see if anyone was interested or had any
ideas.
I'm wondering why we can'twrite basic DOS
emulation as a KLD. DOS programs are x86 code, a majority of it usually
doing basic mundane (userland
"Jacques A. Vidrine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do folks think about
1)if (data)
free(data);
versus
2)free(data);
versus
3)#define xfree(x) if ((x) != NULL) free(x);
xfree(data);
(2), unless you can show that you actually win
Devin Butterfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is IMHO one of the advantages linux has over FreeBSD. You can run
by your local Barnes Noble bookstore and pick up a copy of "Linux
Device Drivers" and start writing code that you actually understand.
It's less of an advantage than you might
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
: What do folks think about
:
: 1)if (data)
: free(data);
:
: versus
:
: 2)free(data);
:
: versus
:
: 3)#define xfree(x) if ((x) != NULL) free(x);
: xfree(data);
Number 2. ANSI-C (aka c89)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
: I hate to give up a line for
:
: if (data)
: free(data);
:
: but neither do I care for ``if (data) free(data);''. I guess if I
: were writing several statements like that in a single file, I would
: consider the
Devin Butterfield wrote:
This is IMHO one of the advantages linux has over FreeBSD. You can run
by your local Barnes Noble bookstore and pick up a copy of "Linux
Device Drivers" and start writing code that you actually understand.
And they'll run fine in Linux 2.0.43pre11 or something like
Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 06:37:56PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
It's hardly arbitrary, though the jury's still out as to whether it's
misguided or not. You may remember that Apple bought a little company
called NeXT a few years back. Well, that company's people had
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
Yeah, but in what sense is that use of Mach a serious
microkernel, if it's only got one server: BSD? I've never
understood the point of that sort of use. It makes sense for a
QNX or GNU/Hurd or minix or Amoeba style of architecture, but
how does Mach help
Sergey Babkin wrote:
David Preece wrote:
At 13:02 17/12/00 +, you wrote:
Does anyone have any good tips to get started / HowTo's, or some simple
examples
that will give me knowledge like the PC Speaker or something simple like
that?
This is turning into a FAQ, but don't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes:
Number 2. ANSI-C (aka c89) requires that free(NULL) work. We
shouldn't go out of our way to pander to those machines where it
doesn't.
The reason why this is so is that it is legal for
realloc(ptr, 0):
to return either a NULL pointer
39 matches
Mail list logo
