On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:48:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Agreed. That was actually part of the reason why I thought clone() was
> much better than the pthreads interface.
>
> That said, the Linux !CLONE_FILES does have downsides:
>
> - it is potentially much slower to do than sharing ev
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:48:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Agreed. That was actually part of the reason why I thought clone() was
> > much better than the pthreads interface.
> >
> > That said, the Linux !CLONE_FILES does have downsides:
> >
> >
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:03:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:48:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Agreed. That was actually part of the reason why I thought clone() was
> > > much better than the pthreads interfa
On Tue, 15 May 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:41:06PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > prior to 2.6.21 i could "numactl --interleave=all" and use SHM_HUGETLB and
> > the interleave policy would be respected. as of 2.6.21 it doesn't seem to
> > respect the policy on
On 6/10/07, John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This has been an on-going issue for I don't know how long. I
reported it a while ago but it's still in 2.6.22.
Here's another error log. Loaded the Via driver in Xorg with kernel
2.6.22
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> IOW, the most common case for libraries is not that they get invoced to do
> one thing, but that they get loaded and then used over and over and over
> again, and the _reason_ for wanting to have a file descriptor open may
> well be that the library w
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>>> @@ -258,8 +259,14 @@ static void it821x_passthru_set_piomode(
>>> static const u8 pio_want[]= { ATA_66, ATA_66, ATA_66, ATA_66,
>>> ATA_ANY };
>>>
>>> struct it821x_dev *itdev = ap->private_data;
>>> + struct ata_device *pair = ata_dev_pair(adev
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:10:51PM -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> ok i've narrowed it some... maybe.
> in commit 8ef8286689c6b5bc76212437b85bdd2ba749ee44 things work fine, numa
> policy is respected...
> the very next commit bc56bba8f31bd99f350a5ebfd43d50f411b620c7 breaks shm
> badly causing the tes
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, dean gaudet wrote:
>
> for an example of a library wanting to cache an open fd ... and failing
> miserably at protecting itself from the application closing its fd read:
Heh.
Why the hell doesn't that thing just do an "fstat()" on the thing, and
compare the inode number?
The current list.h has the same type for list elements and list heads
even though most code and coders treat them as distinct.
I've had a version of list.h (for userspace work) for about a year
which uses a different type for nodes and it works very well: code is
clearer, and mistakes like list_ad
After SRST, libata used to wait for nsect/lbal to be set to 1/1 for
the slave device. However, some ATAPI devices don't set nsect/lbal
after SRST and the wait itself isn't too useful as we're gonna wait
for !BSY right after that anyway.
Before reset-seq update, nsect/lbal wait failure used to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 6/10/07, John Richard Moser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been an on-going issue for I don't know how long. I
> reported it a while ago but it's still in 2.6.22.
>
> Here's another error log. Loaded the Via driv
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:06:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Why the hell doesn't that thing just do an "fstat()" on the thing, and
> compare the inode number? Not that I would guarantee that it works either
> for a socket, but it would seem to make more sense than what it apparently
> does
On 6/4/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So -rc4 is out there now, hopefully shrinking the regression list further.
(CCd net device MAINTAINERs, I'm not sure, but nv_alloc_rx is forcedeth)
This server has been up for about a day now and I'm starting to get
some bad looking message
On 6/7/07, S. P. Prasanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It faulted when it tried to write the breakpoint instruction into the
> >running kernel's executable code. Apparently the kernel code is now marked
> >read-only?
> >
> >
> Yes it would appear to be the case as user has CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA
>
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes in gmane.linux.kernel:
<...>
> But let's say that you want to do a library that does name resolution, and
> you actually want to create the socket that binds to the DNS server just
> once, and then re-use that socket across library calls. It's not that t
On Friday 08 June 2007, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 6/7/2007, "Bjorn Helgaas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wednesday 06 June 2007 02:45:01 pm Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 06 June 2007, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:29:11 pm Andrey Borzenkov wrote
Davide Libenzi writes:
> > Why must everything that makes things a bit simpler and more
> > predictable for application programmers be called a "mistake"?
>
> Because if you give guarantees on something, ppl start using such
> guarantee in the wrong way. Kyle's email summarizes it.
OK, my quest
Kyle Moffett writes:
> 1) Linear FD allocation makes it IMPOSSIBLE for libraries to
> reliably use persistent FDs behind an application's back. For
That's not completely true; for example, openlog() opens a file
descriptor for the library's own use, as does sethostent(). I agree
that it cr
201 - 219 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
