Al Writes:
> It is quite probably a shell related problem, but something weird is
> definitly going on. Having said that, the problem caused by buffers not
> getting unmapped, which has now been fixed, would have caused major problems
> when copying an installation to harddisk, and very probably w
Greg Haerr writes:
>
> : I have frequently experienced very bizare behavoir whenever the commandline
> : for a program gets very long, including hung processes, a hung system, and
> : some really messy crashes. I think this is the problem you are having with
> : wildcards. Somewhere the length of
: I have frequently experienced very bizare behavoir whenever the commandline
: for a program gets very long, including hung processes, a hung system, and
: some really messy crashes. I think this is the problem you are having with
: wildcards. Somewhere the length of the commandline is not being
Alistair Riddoch writes:
>
> Phil Kos writes:
> >
> > Chris Starling wrote:
> > > And the nifty thing is that I always get the message upon creating the
> > > 63rd file and any file thereafter.
> >
> > Sounds like this message happens when the function goes from the first
> > to the second allo
Jacek Lipkowski writes:
>
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Chris Starling wrote:
>
> > fsck seems to have no effect (does it really do anything yet?) Anyone
> > else ever had this problem? How do you make it go away?
>
> it doesn't seem to do anything, i've tried this on several block devices
> (flop
Chris Starling writes:
>
> In a perhaps unrelated problem, I've experienced weirdness when using
> the * wildcard when copying a large number of files. The cp process will
> freeze completely, although the machine is fine. I can kill the shell out
> from under it, but I can't kill -9 the cp
Chris Starling writes:
>
>
> Boy I've had the last 4 posts on the list now, I'll give you guys one
> guess as to what I did today... :)
>
Already replied to the other issue..
>
> Question #2
>
> I compiled Robert de Bath's man program in the sys_utils directory, but
> I can't get it to
Phil Kos writes:
>
> Chris Starling wrote:
> > And the nifty thing is that I always get the message upon creating the
> > 63rd file and any file thereafter.
>
> Sounds like this message happens when the function goes from the first
> to the second allocation unit of the directory. (62 files plus
Chris Starling wrote:
> And the nifty thing is that I always get the message upon creating the
> 63rd file and any file thereafter.
Sounds like this message happens when the function goes from the first
to the second allocation unit of the directory. (62 files plus entries
for . and .. is 64, whi
( CC'd back to ELKS list for the enjoyment of others)
> You mean this is reproducable ? I'll have a look at it tomorrow.
Yes.
And the nifty thing is that I always get the message upon creating the
63rd file and any file thereafter.
I've successfully reproduced it in other director
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Chris Starling wrote:
> fsck seems to have no effect (does it really do anything yet?) Anyone
> else ever had this problem? How do you make it go away?
it doesn't seem to do anything, i've tried this on several block devices
(floppy, a 20Mb disk partition, a 5Mb disk par
Boy I've had the last 4 posts on the list now, I'll give you guys one
guess as to what I did today... :)
QUESTION #1
I was adding new toys to my /bin directory and upon adding about the
60th file to the directory, I got this message:
"minix_add_entry may need another unmap_buffer :)"
It a
12 matches
Mail list logo
