The vgonel function isnt declarated in any header, the vgonel prototype
in vgone(9) isnt correct - found by Ben Kaduk ka...@mit.edu
--
Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org
fixed vgonel prototype in vgone.9 - found by Ben Kaduk ka...@mit.edu
From: Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org
---
attached the fixed vgonel.patch
--
Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org
fix implicit declaration warning - found by Ben Kaduk ka...@mit.edu
From: Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org
---
sys/sys/vnode.h |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sys/sys/vnode.h
Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
fsync(2) actually does behave as advertised, auses all modified
data and attributes of fd to be moved to a permanent storage
device. It is the problem of the permanent storage device
if it caches this data further.
IMO, volatile RAM without battery backup
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:00:51 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Short of mounting synchronously, with the attendant performance
hit, would it not make sense for fsync(2) to issue ATA_FLUSHCACHE
or SCSI SYNCHRONIZE CACHE after it has finished writing data
to the drive? Surely the low-level
On 10/27/10 12:11, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:00:51 -0700
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Short of mounting synchronously, with the attendant performance
hit, would it not make sense for fsync(2) to issue ATA_FLUSHCACHE
or SCSI SYNCHRONIZE CACHE after it has finished writing data
On 26 October 2010 17:34, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:00:14 am Selphie Keller wrote:
Thanks Andriy,
Took a look at the change to src/sys/sys/sysent.h
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static struct syscall_module_data name##
};
On 27 October 2010 10:23, Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org wrote:
The vgonel function isnt declarated in any header, the vgonel prototype
in vgone(9) isnt correct - found by Ben Kaduk ka...@mit.edu
Hi.
I'm afraid it's just an overlooked man page after many VFS changes in 5.x.
As vgonel() is a
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a typical
laptop or desktop system, you end up spinning the disk down and
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem with setting a short idle timeout is that, on a
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:33:49 +0200
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
The problem
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Oct 21 10, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010
Alexander Best wrote:
i just stumbled upon PR 144770, where a somebody seems to have mistaken the
spindown value for minutes instead of seconds. so i really think we should
have
this warning in atacontrol!
+1 from brucec, if i understood him correctly.
another possibility would
Alexander Best wrote:
but this will not solve the real issue: specifying 'atacontrol
spindown 1s' WILL damage your hardware!
You're making assumptions. I can very well imagine scenarios
where 1s might make sense and will not damage the hardware,
for example when there is no file system
===
--- ObsoleteFiles.inc (revision 214414)
+++ ObsoleteFiles.inc (working copy)
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
# The file is partitioned: OLD_FILES first, then OLD_LIBS and OLD_DIRS last.
#
+# 20101027: vgonel(9) has gone to private API a while ago
+OLD_FILES+=usr/share/man/man9
On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:33:13 am Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 27 October 2010 10:23, Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org wrote:
The vgonel function isnt declarated in any header, the vgonel prototype
in vgone(9) isnt correct - found by Ben Kaduk ka...@mit.edu
Hi.
I'm afraid it's just
Alexander Best wrote:
On Wed Oct 27 10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Why not just be consistent with other interfaces and provide
suffixes for the values to parse out integral times (i.e. 1 [second],
1m, 2h)? As long as the value is behavior is properly documented in
the manpage (and potentially
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
Oliver Fromme o...@lurza.secnetix.de wrote:
I'm also against printing a warning for values less than 600.
If I want to set the value to 300, I don't want to be slapped
with a useless warning.
Having just checked Windows and seen that it lets you
.
#
+# 20101027: vgonel(9) has gone to private API a while ago
+OLD_FILES+=usr/share/man/man9/vgonel.9.gz
# 20101020: catch up with vm_page_sleep_if_busy rename
OLD_FILES+=usr/share/man/man9/vm_page_sleep_busy.9.gz
# 20101011: removed subblock.h from liblzma
Index: share/man/man9/Makefile
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:33:13 am Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
On 27 October 2010 10:23, Lars Hartmann l...@chaotika.org wrote:
The vgonel function isnt declarated in any header, the vgonel prototype
in vgone(9) isnt correct - found by Ben Kaduk
Peter Jeremy peterjer...@acm.org writes:
I've mostly convered to ZFS but still have UFS root (which is basically
a full base install without /var but including /usr/src - 94k inodes
and 1.7GB). I've run both the 8-stable (stable) and patched (jfd) dump
alternately 4 times with 50/250MB cache
On 2010-Oct-27 20:17:06 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
Peter Jeremy peterjer...@acm.org writes:
I've mostly convered to ZFS but still have UFS root (which is basically
a full base install without /var but including /usr/src - 94k inodes
and 1.7GB). I've run both the 8-stable
Peter Jeremy peterjer...@acm.org writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav d...@des.no wrote:
9413 what? Puppies?
Ooops, sorry - KB/sec as reported in the dump summary.
Thank you :)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Can anyone suggest a method/formula to monitor contiguous physical memory
allocations such that one could predict when contigmalloc(), make that
bus_dmamem_alloc might fail?
Dr
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dr. Baud drb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Can anyone suggest a method/formula to monitor contiguous physical
memory
allocations such that one could predict when contigmalloc(), make that
bus_dmamem_alloc might fail?
From the command line you can obtain this
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:59:56AM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
[1] The old (racy) function is osi_TryEvictVCache, here:
http://git.openafs.org/?p=openafs.git;a=blob;f=src/afs/FBSD/osi_vcache.c;h=c2060c74f0155a610d2ea94f3c7f508e8ca4373a;hb=HEAD
The
25 matches
Mail list logo
