Hi there,
I'm sorry to report the problem I observed in so little detail,
but OTOH I feel I must notify the community about it. I'm afraid
there's too little detail for a PR.
Yesterday I did binary upgrade of my home system, from 4.9-R to
4.10-R. Then I merged my old /etc into the new one. Of
Hi Robert,
As promised my findings regarding the changes; just came home after a night
of trying and praying :)
Actually, by default, most mutexes in the system are sleep mutexes, so
they sleep on contention rather than spinning. In some cases, this
actually hurts more than spinning, because
On boot I see the following on an IBM T30 laptop:
Mounting root from ufs:/dev/ad0s1a
WARNING: / was not properly dismounted
ad0: FAILURE - READ_MUL status=59READY,DSC,DRQ,ERROR
error=40UNCORRECTABLE LBA=376639
ad0: FAILURE - READ_MUL status=59READY,DSC,DRQ,ERROR
error=40UNCORRECTABLE LBA=376639
Any reason, that there is a difference in semantics between:
seteuid(id) vs. setreuid(-1, id)???
The tests performed on the arguments are different (assuming a
fixed arg of -1 for ruid) in that seteuid does not support the
case of (euid == cr_uid):
seteuid(euid):
I have managed to really mess up my NEC Express/II P90LT EISA system
that I've been trying to get up for some eisa rework I'm doing. Can
anybody send me the base motherboard configuration program as well as
the aic7770 config files (the ones I've found on the net, along with
the configuration
Hi,
At 16:16 06/06/2004, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I have managed to really mess up my NEC Express/II P90LT EISA system
that I've been trying to get up for some eisa rework I'm doing. Can
anybody send me the base motherboard configuration program as well as
the aic7770 config files (the ones I've
All,
We are about 4-6 weeks away from starting the 5.3 release cycle. As it
stands, KSE still only works reliably on i386. There are reports of
significant instability on amd64, and it doesn't work at all on alpha
and sparc64. I'm willing to drop the alpha requirement and maybe even
the sparc64
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:14:57PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
All,
We are about 4-6 weeks away from starting the 5.3 release cycle. As it
stands, KSE still only works reliably on i386.
I don't have any problems on ia64.
... I'm willing to drop the alpha requirement and maybe even
the
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Scott Long wrote:
All,
We are about 4-6 weeks away from starting the 5.3 release cycle. As it
stands, KSE still only works reliably on i386. There are reports of
significant instability on amd64, and it doesn't work at all on alpha
and sparc64. I'm willing to drop
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Scott Long wrote:
All,
We are about 4-6 weeks away from starting the 5.3 release cycle. As it
stands, KSE still only works reliably on i386. There are reports of
significant instability on amd64, and it doesn't work at all on alpha
and sparc64. I'm
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:14:57PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
All,
We are about 4-6 weeks away from starting the 5.3 release cycle. As it
stands, KSE still only works reliably on i386.
I don't have any problems on ia64.
Good to hear =-)
... I'm willing to drop the alpha
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:27:08PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
Doug Rabson also has basic TLS support working in perforce.
What platforms? My understanding was that new binutils and gcc was
needed for sparc64 at a minimum.
Yes. It's i386 only and not even close to being complete. In fact,
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As with Alpha,
the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
Agreed, but it's the projects responsibility to take the tierness and
the intend to support multiple
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As with Alpha,
the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
Agreed, but it's the projects responsibility to
Hey all,
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
Not to take away from the tremendous effort that jake had done for
sparc64, but it should really take more than one or two supporting
developers to obtain tier
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As with Alpha,
the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
Agreed, but it's the projects responsibility to take the tierness and
the intend
Wilko Bulte wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As with Alpha,
the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
Agreed, but it's the
On 6 Jun, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:31:56PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As with Alpha,
the fate of a platform rests on the people who are willing to work on
it, not on whether it is in a particular list.
Agreed, but
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:49:13PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
amd64 is approaching critical mass for tier-1. There are a number of
developers that own amd64 hardware now, and a number of users who are
asking about it on the mailing lists. Peter is finishing up the last
blocking item for it
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:56PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
for his own sake.
We shouldn't keep an arch at tier 1 just to save face. Better to
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:46:44PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
for his own sake.
It's not that there is face to loose on alpha, it's that every time
I
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 03:46:44PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
for his own sake.
It's not that there is face to loose on alpha, it's that
At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote:
At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from
Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking
item for releases. ... As I said back then, demotion is not a
terminal condition, and I would be thrilled if someone comes
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote:
At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from
Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking
item for releases. ... As I said back then, demotion is not a
terminal condition, and I would be
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 02:32:11AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for it
for his own sake.
Alpha is special, with
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 05:27:56PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
:
: As for alpha, we don't even seem to be able to degrade it to tier 2
: without losing face. kris@ has already stopped package builds for
On Sunday 06 June 2004 16:49, Scott Long wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 3:46 PM -0600 6/6/04, Scott Long wrote:
At this point, I'm going to advocate that Alpha be dropped from
Tier-1 status for 5.3 and 5-STABLE and no longer be a blocking
item for releases. ... As I said back then,
27 matches
Mail list logo
