Re: removal of NGROUPS_MAX dependancy from base

2009-02-23 Thread n0g0013
On 22.02-16:28, Brooks Davis wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:07:19AM +, ttw+...@cobbled.net wrote: On 21.02-22:49, Julian Elischer wrote: [ ... ] this patch should remove the dependancy on the definition of NGROUPS_MAX as a static constant and implement it as a writable sysconf

Re: shmmax tops out at 2G?

2009-02-23 Thread Brian A. Seklecki
On Wed, 2006-Dec-13 10:50:21 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Bill Moran wmoran at collaborativefusion.com: sysctl kern.ipc.shmmax=22 kern.ipc.shmmax: 21 - -2094967296 Someone was nice enough to file a PR related to this:

Re: shmmax tops out at 2G?

2009-02-23 Thread Christian Peron
This issue has come up a number of times. I was looking into fixing this but I just have not had the time. The basic issue is our shmid_ds structure: struct shmid_ds { struct ipc_perm shm_perm; /* operation permission structure */ int shm_segsz; /* size of

Re: shmmax tops out at 2G?

2009-02-23 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Christian Peron wrote: This issue has come up a number of times. I was looking into fixing this but I just have not had the time. The basic issue is our shmid_ds structure: struct shmid_ds { struct ipc_perm shm_perm; /* operation permission

Re: shmmax tops out at 2G?

2009-02-23 Thread Christian Peron
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:58:09AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: [..] Why isn't the field an unsigned int / size_t? I don't see much value in having the size be signed... No idea :) This code long predates me. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org

Re: shmmax tops out at 2G?

2009-02-23 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Christian Peron c...@freebsd.org: On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:58:09AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: [..] Why isn't the field an unsigned int / size_t? I don't see much value in having the size be signed... No idea :) This code long predates me. It's that way