On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
> everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
> contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
> with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
>
> +
On 14 Nov 2003 at 10:08, Dan Langille wrote:
> Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
> everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
> contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
> with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
>
>
Daniel: It appears the patch which was comitted didn't include
everything it should. I blame myself because the patch below
contains both debugging code and is reversed. I will submit a PR
with a patch. In brief, what is missing is:
+ if (n == 0) {
+
On Monday, 6 October 2003 at 21:46:24 -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2003 at 19:10, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
>> Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
>> days later).
>
> I don't think so. Could they have been moderated? What do the
> headers say?
Somebody in France ha
On 6 Oct 2003 at 19:10, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
> days later).
I don't think so. Could they have been moderated? What do the headers say?
--
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
___
[EMAI
Is your mailer screwed up? We're getting duplicates (a few
days later).
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> >
> > > On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 16 Sep
On Saturday 04 October 2003 07:21 am, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2003 at 10:17, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to
> > > do a few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
> > >
> > >
On 4 Oct 2003 at 10:17, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> >
> > All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
> > few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
> >
> > What's the next step? Commit it? Get others to test with it
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
> few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
>
> What's the next step? Commit it? Get others to test with it first?
It's already in -current. You'll have to wait f
On 29 Sep 2003 at 9:02, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Right, this seems correct to me.
> >
> > All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
> > few more tests on dif
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> >
> > Right, this seems correct to me.
>
> All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a
> few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable.
>
> What's the next step? Com
On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
> > > > to be done, b
On 19 Sep 2003 at 2:24, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > > If you are using libkse or
> > > > libthr, you will get a partial byte count and not zero because
> > > > the tape driver returns the (partial) bytes written. So exiting
> > > > the loop in libc_r and returning 0 would o
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > If you are using libkse or
> > > libthr, you will get a partial byte count and not zero because
> > > the tape driver returns the (partial) bytes written. So exiting
> > > the loop in libc_r and returning 0 would only seem to correct
> > > the "problem" for libc_r.
>
>
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> >
> > > I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
> > > to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
> > > comme
On 16 Sep 2003 at 20:49, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
> > to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
> > comments. The patched code is available from
> > http://beta
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote:
> I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
> to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
> comments. The patched code is available from
> http://beta.freebsddiary.org/tmp/uthread_write.c and the patch
> appear
I've had preliminary success with this patch. More testing needs
to be done, but in the meantime, I would appreciate reviews and
comments. The patched code is available from
http://beta.freebsddiary.org/tmp/uthread_write.c and the patch
appears below.
In short, the logic has been changed to en
18 matches
Mail list logo
