In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w
rites:
>And, I will also add, in regards to using the stat structure for
>setattr(), that it creates a serious portability problem as well as
>a serious forward and reverse compatibility problem. Which fields
>in the stat structure
And, I will also add, in regards to using the stat structure for
setattr(), that it creates a serious portability problem as well as
a serious forward and reverse compatibility problem. Which fields
in the stat structure are going to be ignored by the syscall and
which are no
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon w
rites:
>setattr() and friends do not exist anywhere outside of this proposal.
>I don't particularly like the idea of replacing existing functionality
>with a new non-standard system call. The speed issue alone is not enough
>to justi
setattr() and friends do not exist anywhere outside of this proposal.
I don't particularly like the idea of replacing existing functionality
with a new non-standard system call. The speed issue alone is not enough
to justify the change, nor is Kirk's new creation time field (beside
Âàì íóæíà ïðîãðàììà, àíàëîãîâ êîòîðîé åùå íå ñóùåñòâóåò â êîìïüþòåðíîì ìèðå?
Èëè Âû õîòèòå, ÷òîáû Âàø ñàéò ñòàë Âàøèì äîñòîéíûì ëèöîì?
Âàì òðåáóþòñÿ óñëóãè ïðîôåññèîíàëüíûõ ïðîãðàììèñòîâ è äèçàéíåðîâ? Äëÿ ýòîãî íå
îáÿçàòåëüíî êóäà-òî èäòè. Âû ìîæåòå çàêàçàòü íóæíîå Âàì ïðîãðàììíîå îáåñïå÷åíèå èëè
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Lawson wri
tes:
>> Because 1 syscall and 2 namei calls are faster than 4 syscalls and
>> four namei calls.
>
>Which leaves us back at my previous point which is that something is wrong
>with caching if 4 namei calls (for the SAME name) are so much slower. A
>g
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Nate Lawson writes:
> >I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the utility of this whole
> >plan. dump/restore are done on disk devices which are at least an order
> >of magnitude slower than a syscall boundary crossing. Going from 4
> >syscalls to 1 can
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:41:58AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> > After the fs has been repaired, the alternate sb is not copied to the
> > default sb (currently).
>
> This doesn't sound valid. It would mean, if your suberblock has
> crashed and you use t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aleksander Rozman
- Andy writes:
>
>Hi !
>I have a very weird problem. Time is running very fast on my computer
>(arround 2 minutes per second - every second two minutes have passed. Some
>time ago I had the same problem with some other computer who had special
>
Update to 4.7
- Original Message -
From: "Aleksander Rozman - Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 11:14 PM
Subject: Time problem...time is running very fast
>
> Hi !
> I have a very weird problem. Time is running very fast on my computer
>
Hi !
I have a very weird problem. Time is running very fast on my computer
(arround 2 minutes per second - every second two minutes have passed. Some
time ago I had the same problem with some other computer who had special
Packet Radio card in it (which FreeBSD has no support for), but this tim
Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2002 16:24 schrieb Michael Ranner:
> Hi there!
>
> I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for
> 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on
> http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php.
>
In between I have modfied 5.0 restore to use setattr(). Because o
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:28:00PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> >>I've successfully repaired a fs with the superblock backup at 32. Now how
> >>do I copy that backup to the default superblock location? fsck_ffs does
> >>NOT automatically do this.
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Lawson wri
tes:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote:
>> Hi there!
>>
>> I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for
>> 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php.
>>
>> Comments and suggesti
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:41:58AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> After the fs has been repaired, the alternate sb is not copied to the
> default sb (currently).
This doesn't sound valid. It would mean, if your suberblock has
crashed and you use the alternate, then every subsequent fsck
run would fai
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote:
> Hi there!
>
> I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for
> 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php.
>
> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the ut
Andreas Klemm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:28:00PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
I've successfully repaired a fs with the superblock backup at 32. Now how
do I copy that backup to the default superblock location? fsck_ffs does
NOT automatically do this.
It does. With fsck -b 32 you
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:28:00PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> > I've successfully repaired a fs with the superblock backup at 32. Now how
> > do I copy that backup to the default superblock location? fsck_ffs does
> > NOT automatically do this.
>
> It
Hello! You have shown an interest in [Art Glass, Crystal, and Amber with Silver
(glass, vase, glasses, bowl, plate, platter, china, set,
candlesticks, goblets, platter, serving, tumblers) etc.], such as the kind I often
have listed on eBay. If you would like to receive notices this week, please
19 matches
Mail list logo
