> >As of a write-protected floppy, why is it allowd to be mounted as
> >writeable?
> >The mount should be degraded to readonly or rejected.
This would not be very convenient - a person may want to
remove the write protection without remounting the floppy.
28.10.2002; 18:14:52
[SorAlx] http://cyde
> :The output signals don't go straight from the chip - do they?
> :I've seen few KOhms resistors on most boards for each output pin.
> An external series resistor is there strictly for current
> limiting purposes.
Yep, that's why I asked if manufacturers usually put external
resistors.
I tried to
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 October 2002 at 2:03:50 +, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 01:54, Kenneth Culver wrote:
> >>> I haven't had any trouble with the WDxxxBB drives - the WDxxxAA drives
> >>> are pretty unreliable though.
> >>>
> >>
David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Actually, not even then. Modern IDE drives only write entire tracks at a
> > time. If you modify a single sector, then the drive has to read the entire
> > track into the buffer, in-place edit the sector, and then rewrite the
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 10:59, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> I've had trouble with BB drives. Given that they have (or had) a 3
What trouble?
> year warranty, 1 year of experience isn't very much to go by.
Hah, well not anymore..
I agree with your assessment about 1 vs 3 years, but as I said below
On Tuesday, 29 October 2002 at 2:03:50 +, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 01:54, Kenneth Culver wrote:
>>> I haven't had any trouble with the WDxxxBB drives - the WDxxxAA drives
>>> are pretty unreliable though.
>>>
>> Hrmm, I havn't tried those, but just about every WD drive I'
l *routine + 0x350 or if you use a core file with symbols (-g), gdb will
do it automatically. Please read the gdb docs for better info.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> Thanks. The backtrace often gives something like:
>
> + 0x350
>
> Is there a way to quickly determine the c
Thanks. The backtrace often gives something like:
+ 0x350
Is there a way to quickly determine the correponding source code line?
-Zhihui
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On 29-Oct-2002 Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember there
Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Recently? I know that the bug was present at least six months
> >ago, and probably earlier as well.
>
> That's "recently" enough for me :-)
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP sin
Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> On Oct 29 at 18:34, Poul-Henning Kamp spoke:
> > That's a slightly more involved issue because you would have to
> > actually try to write to it before you find out that you can't.
>
> Isn't there a means to determine the state of the protection before
> the mount is atte
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 29-Oct-2002 Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> >
> > I remember there is a command in either gdb or ddb which enable you to
> > display the stack of a particular process. Can anyone tell me if there is
> > such a command and what the command is? Thanks!
>
> In dd
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
>
> > > I'd probably steer clear of the western digital drives as well. Yes the
> >
> > make that "stear" clear.
>
> Ummm... why? "steer" is a word with multiple meanings. I can't find
> "stear" anywhere.
Mu.
-
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schultz writes:
>Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schultz writes:
>>
>> >IMO, the retry-forever bug is the
>> >real problem, but I'm a bit skeptical that it's easy to solve
>> >safely.
>>
>> Just rever
Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schultz writes:
>
> >IMO, the retry-forever bug is the
> >real problem, but I'm a bit skeptical that it's easy to solve
> >safely.
>
> Just revert the commit which added it recently.
Recently? I know that
help
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
:The output signals don't go straight from the chip - do they?
:I've seen few KOhms resistors on most boards for each output pin.
:
:27.10.2002; 19:32:00
:[SorAlx] http://cydem.zp.ua/
It depends on the chip. Most modern serial driver chips have series
resistors on the outputs, inside th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Schultz writes:
>IMO, the retry-forever bug is the
>real problem, but I'm a bit skeptical that it's easy to solve
>safely.
Just revert the commit which added it recently.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TC
Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Isn't there a means to determine the state of the protection before
> >the mount is attempted?
>
> As far as I know there isn't. I'm not sure if it is a device driver
> (morituri te salutem!) or hardware issue.
I believe most floppy drives can
On Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 06:47:24PM +0100, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
>
> Isn't there a means to determine the state of the protection before
> the mount is attempted?
No.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hanspeter Roth writes:
> On Oct 29 at 18:34, Poul-Henning Kamp spoke:
>
>> That's a slightly more involved issue because you would have to
>> actually try to write to it before you find out that you can't.
>
>Isn't there a means to determine the state of the protect
On Oct 29 at 18:34, Poul-Henning Kamp spoke:
> That's a slightly more involved issue because you would have to
> actually try to write to it before you find out that you can't.
Isn't there a means to determine the state of the protection before
the mount is attempted?
-Hanspeter
To Unsubscrib
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hanspeter Roth writes:
> On Oct 18 at 20:45, Maxim Sobolev spoke:
>
>> again, then again ad infinitum. The same effect if you'll mount
>> write-protected floppy in read/write mode.
This is just lame, but I'm not willing to to take a shouting match
with the person
On Oct 18 at 20:45, Maxim Sobolev spoke:
> again, then again ad infinitum. The same effect if you'll mount
> write-protected floppy in read/write mode.
As of a write-protected floppy, why is it allowd to be mounted as
writeable?
The mount should be degraded to readonly or rejected.
-Hanspeter
On 29-Oct-2002 Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> I remember there is a command in either gdb or ddb which enable you to
> display the stack of a particular process. Can anyone tell me if there is
> such a command and what the command is? Thanks!
In ddb you can do 'tr ' where is the PID of the process.
Is /usr/ports/sysutils/pstack
what you're looking for?
--
Peter.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 05:08:45PM +0100, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:56:35AM -0500, Joe Sunday wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:12:33AM -0800, David Nicholas Kayal wrote:
> >
> > > I'm looking for a 5 volt signal.
> > >
> > > I have wires plugged into pins 2 and 25 of
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:56:35AM -0500, Joe Sunday wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 09:12:33AM -0800, David Nicholas Kayal wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for a 5 volt signal.
> >
> > I have wires plugged into pins 2 and 25 of the parallel port.
> >
> > I have written a small program:
> >
> > #inclu
I remember there is a command in either gdb or ddb which enable you to
display the stack of a particular process. Can anyone tell me if there is
such a command and what the command is? Thanks!
-Zhihui
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body
Thus spake Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually, not even then. Modern IDE drives only write entire tracks at a
> time. If you modify a single sector, then the drive has to read the entire
> track into the buffer, in-place edit the sector, and then rewrite the entire
> track.
[...]
> And t
29 matches
Mail list logo
