On 2012.05.08 12:02, Pete Batard wrote:
> Looks like we also could use a space between "[function call]"
> and "" in the header.
Disregard. Thunderbird ate the space when replying.
Regards,
/Pete
--
Live Security Virtua
On 2012.05.08 11:42, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I downloaded your attached patch. Somehow both
> "git am" and "patch -p1" failed. So I manually change
> the file and indeed it seem to work fine under
> OpenBSD Current. Thanks.
OK. I generated the patch with git diff, but I'll make sure to go
through a
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.05.08 11:07, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>
>> Martin's answer:
>> "This is normal, you must use an OpenBSD -current in order
>> to have real threads enable, until 5.1 OpenBSD only has
>> userland threads."
>
> OK. If possible, can you try the a
On 2012.05.08 11:08, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> Sean, maybe it would be an idea for the os dependent code to print a
>>> thread "name" + id when creating a thread and debugging is enabled,
>>> this way a user can easily find which thread-id is which thread
>>> in the logs?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is a go
On 2012.05.08 11:07, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
Martin's answer:
"This is normal, you must use an OpenBSD -current in order
to have real threads enable, until 5.1 OpenBSD only has
userland threads."
OK. If possible, can you try the attached patch on your platform and let
me know whether you get a pro
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
libusbx is already calling pthread_setname_np() for the
>>> thread it creates.
>>>
>>> But only for OS X I assume...
>>
>> Sean, maybe it would be an idea for the os dependent code to
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
>> On 2012.05.07 15:47, Pete Batard wrote:
>>> On 2012.05.07 14:40, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
As per Matin (the author of the OpenBSD backend), you can
use the getthrid() syscall that ret
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.05.07 15:47, Pete Batard wrote:
>> On 2012.05.07 14:40, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> As per Matin (the author of the OpenBSD backend), you can
>>> use the getthrid() syscall that returns a pid_t.
>>
>> Great. I'll give it a try and if it wor
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> libusbx is already calling pthread_setname_np() for the thread it creates.
>>
>> But only for OS X I assume...
>>
>
> Sean, maybe it would be an idea for the os dependent code to print a
> thread "name" + id when creating a thread and debugg
On 2012.05.07 15:47, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.05.07 14:40, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> As per Matin (the author of the OpenBSD backend), you can
>> use the getthrid() syscall that returns a pid_t.
>
> Great. I'll give it a try and if it works, add it for the release.
Seems to require linking agains
On 2012.05.07 14:40, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> As per Matin (the author of the OpenBSD backend), you can
> use the getthrid() syscall that returns a pid_t.
Great. I'll give it a try and if it works, add it for the release.
Regards,
/Pete
-
How about moving on to discuss things that actually move
the project forward...
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how
Pete Batard wrote:
> If you think there ever was a problem,
Maybe Ludovic's point is that it would be nice to track authorship in
more detail than you care to.
> then Peter successfully managed to make you believe that he had a
> say as to the content of the patch or the commit message
I wrote
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
>> With BSD support becoming a headache, and no official
>> maintainer for the *BSD backends to help us out, along with
>> the need to go to bugfix release soon, I propose dropping
>> thread
On 2012.05.07 09:22, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> Pete, to avoid any more problems in the future maybe you should
> refrain from editing patches from others.
If you think there ever was a problem, then Peter successfully managed
to make you believe that he had a say as to the content of the patch or
2012/5/6 Pete Batard :
> And this was exactly my intention. The bulk of the patch is yours, and
> I don't really see the need to split it when the addon is minimal.
Pete, to avoid any more problems in the future maybe you should
refrain from editing patches from others.
I have no problem in havin
On 2012.05.06 23:56, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Then please define full owership.
>
> --8<-- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
> A copyright is a law that gives the owner of a written document,
> musical composition, book, picture, or other creative work, the right
> to decide what other people
Pete Batard wrote:
> > I remain the author of my work with all that it entails including
> > full ownership of my work
>
> Then please define full owership.
--8<-- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
A copyright is a law that gives the owner of a written document,
musical composition, book
On 6 May 2012 18:07, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Your proposed commit message says clearly what the commit adds to
> libusbx.git, but the difference between my work and yours is not
> clear while I am named as author with no mention of you, and that
> isn't really accurate.
Happens all the time on every
Pete Batard wrote:
> On 6 May 2012 00:52, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Please clarify in the commit message what was changed since my
> > commit, and please mention the commit id in libusb.git.
>
> This is done in the subject. Thread ID was added. There's no need
> for more.
Your proposed commit messa
On 2012.05.06 03:39, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> With BSD support becoming a headache, and no official maintainer for the
>> *BSD backends to help us out, along with the need to go to bugfix release
>> soon, I propose dropping thread IDs for OpenBSD/NetBSD for the time being,
>> and just return -1 there
On 6 May 2012 00:52, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Please clarify in the commit message what was changed since my
> commit, and please mention the commit id in libusb.git.
This is done in the subject. Thread ID was added. There's no need for more.
As to the libusb commit ID: Given that libusb as libusbx a
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> This is what I have under OpenBSD and I think it looks fine.
>
Similar for NetBSD (6.0 Beta).
bash-4.2$ ./listdevs
[timestamp] [threadID] facility level [function call]
-
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
>> I just tested OpenBSD, and it seems that each *BSD has its own method to get
>> a thread ID, with OpenBSD apparently having none ([1] "OpenBSD: not possible
>> here, there is no way to get
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> I just tested OpenBSD, and it seems that each *BSD has its own method to get
> a thread ID, with OpenBSD apparently having none ([1] "OpenBSD: not possible
> here, there is no way to get a TID") up to recently ([2] "The ps(1) program
> gains the
Pete Batard wrote:
> >From 971f4eb540a414020f4ac9a3cf7b64827cc69ae6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Peter Stuge
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:04:00 +
> Subject: [PATCH] Core: Add a timestamping and thread ID to logging
>
> ---
Please clarify in the commit message what was changed since my
comm
I just tested OpenBSD, and it seems that each *BSD has its own method to
get a thread ID, with OpenBSD apparently having none ([1] "OpenBSD: not
possible here, there is no way to get a TID") up to recently ([2] "The
ps(1) program gains the tid formatting keyword. In conjunction with the
-H opti
Hi,
On 05/05/2012 12:17 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 15:29, Sean McBride wrote:
>> Do you necessarily need an integer to display?
>
> I meant integer in the mathematical sense, not the C sense (else I
> would have used "int").
>
>> You could also print the address of the pthread_t s
On 2012.05.04 23:44, Sean McBride wrote:
>> Wouldn't that mean that OS-X would have different logging from other
>> platforms?
>
> Seems it already does, no? Not all platforms have mach threads after all.
I'm talking about the log output. With the proposal, all platforms
return an int => the lib
On Fri, 4 May 2012 23:17:21 +0100, Pete Batard said:
>> or use pthread_getname_np() to get a string name of the thread (though
>that's only available on 10.6 and later, and the 'np' means 'not portable').
>
>Wouldn't that mean that OS-X would have different logging from other
>platforms?
Seems it
On 4 May 2012 15:29, Sean McBride wrote:
> Do you necessarily need an integer to display?
I meant integer in the mathematical sense, not the C sense (else I
would have used "int").
> You could also print the address of the pthread_t struct
Which would be an integer alright, so why not... Not s
On Thu, 3 May 2012 23:32:22 +0100, Pete Batard said:
>>> +#elif defined(__APPLE__)
>>> + ret = mach_thread_self();
>>> + mach_port_deallocate(mach_task_self(), ret);
>>
>> Perhaps I missed an earlier discussion, but why drop to the mach
>level? Wouldn't pthread_self() be more portable?
>
>The
On 2012.05.03 23:27, Sean McBride wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 23:20:09 +0100, Pete Batard said:
>
>> +#elif defined(__APPLE__)
>> +ret = mach_thread_self();
>> +mach_port_deallocate(mach_task_self(), ret);
>
> Perhaps I missed an earlier discussion, but why drop to the mach level?
> Would
On Thu, 3 May 2012 23:20:09 +0100, Pete Batard said:
>+#elif defined(__APPLE__)
>+ ret = mach_thread_self();
>+ mach_port_deallocate(mach_task_self(), ret);
Perhaps I missed an earlier discussion, but why drop to the mach level?
Wouldn't pthread_self() be more portable?
--
_
After testing on OS X, and finding the syscall didn't work, it seems
that each POSIX platform has its own way of getting a thread ID.
This v2 of the patch should ensure that all the libusbx supported
platforms return a valid thread ID. It was tested for OS X and Linux,
but not for BSD.
Regar
On 2012.05.03 10:36, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> I think we should get this tested on *BSD before shipping 1.0.11.
Agreed. In case you wonder, I still plan to have an RC for 1.0.11.
> Integrated this in git and I should be able to carry out tests
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Looks good to me!
>
>> Also note that on POSIX, the tid is obtained through syscall(SYS_gettid).
> I expect it to work everywhere, but I have only tested the call on Linux.
>
> I think we should get this tested on *BSD before shipping 1.0.11.
Hi,
On 05/03/2012 12:19 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> If we're going to have a bugfix release by the end of the week, I wouldn't
> mind also having at least one useful new feature besides the fix.
>
> Timestamped logging looks like a good candidate, but we may want to improve
> on Peter's implementat
If we're going to have a bugfix release by the end of the week, I
wouldn't mind also having at least one useful new feature besides the fix.
Timestamped logging looks like a good candidate, but we may want to
improve on Peter's implementation. As indicated, I wouldn't mind having
a thread ID,
39 matches
Mail list logo
