On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I find that I can't include when I programming
> > with libnet,because $(CC) complains that "struct ether_addr redefined".
> > But I need some definitions in ,struct ether_header etc.
> > Currently,I just copy the definitions I need f
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 05:48:56PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Gilbert Cao wrote:
> > Hi, the list.
> >
> > I have recently notice a problem when I copy a file to a SMB mount
> > directory :
>
> Thanks for the good detective work. Can you send-pr this so that it does not
> get lost?
Yep, it is d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I find that I can't include when I programming
> > > with libnet,because $(CC) complains that "struct ether_addr redefined".
> > > But I need some definitions in ,struct ether_header etc.
> > > Currentl
> - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:55:38 +0800
> From: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Problem about libnet on FreeBSD 6.0
> To: Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fer
Robert Watson wrote on Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 07:12:23AM +:
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Avleen Vig wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:40:22AM -0500, Martin Cracauer wrote:
> >>> 2. SMP kernels for install. Right now we only install a UP kernel, for
> >>> performance reasons. We should be
On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> > Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:55:38 +0800
> > From: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > Reply-To: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Problem about libnet on FreeBSD 6.0
> >
Hi!
I have some troubles with my notebook and any version of FreeBSD
(starting with 6 since my sata controller wasn't supported earlier).
It looks like as it would end up in a deadlock which means i have no
access to the debugger nor to any other kind of tracing methods.
Even with KTR, WITTNES
Armin Pirkovitsch wrote on Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 06:34:44PM +0100:
> Hi!
>
> I have some troubles with my notebook and any version of FreeBSD
> (starting with 6 since my sata controller wasn't supported earlier).
> It looks like as it would end up in a deadlock which means i have no
> access t
I told you it's an empty body, but this is probably why you opened it.
Happy new year FreeBSD hackers, and thank you all for your work and efforts.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Alin-Adrian Anton
GPG keyID 0x183087BA (B129 E8F4 7B34 15A9 0785 2F7C 5823 ABA0 1830 87BA)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-k
Martin Cracauer wrote:
Armin Pirkovitsch wrote on Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 06:34:44PM +0100:
Hi!
I have some troubles with my notebook and any version of FreeBSD
(starting with 6 since my sata controller wasn't supported earlier).
It looks like as it would end up in a deadlock which means i have
On 1/1/06, ari edelkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you read my post?
> Or are you not on the list? I sent my response directly to the list,
> not including you specifically.
>
> ari
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
> > In my opinion,struct ether_addr is defined both in
> > and libne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Did you read my post?
> > Or are you not on the list? I sent my response directly to the list,
> > not including you specifically.
[...]
> I am on the list,and I don't receive your post.
> I think you can send post specifically to me and cc
> to the list :-).
> Thanks
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Did you read my post?
> > > Or are you not on the list? I sent my response directly to the list,
> > > not including you specifically.
> [...]
> > I am on the list,and I don't receive your post.
> > I think you can send post specifically to me and cc
> > to the l
> > It's more likely to be a general instability from broken hardware.
> >
> > Use prime95 (ports/math/mprime) to test your processor and thermal
> > stability (36 hours or so), and memtest86 (seperately).
>
> I guess I should have mentioned that other systems work fine and run
> stable (and mem
Hi hackers,
I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
give the lock to the first thread waiting on the turnstile.And a
thread gets the mutex after he returned from turnstile_wait so he
can simply jump out the _
15 matches
Mail list logo