to add statements inside the loop. For maximum
readability I'd leave the "continue" even if there are other statements:
for(;;) {
stm1;
if (condition) {
break;
}
stm2;
continue;
On 10 Jan 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But what happens if I delete the stm1 line? We have:
> >
> > case xxx:
> > /* fallthrough */
> > case yyy:
> > stm2;
> &
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > >
> > > case xxx:
> > > /* fallthrough */ ;
> > > }
> > >
> > > or something (or maybe just a "break" stateme
dvocate
> > This message is copyright 2000, all rights reserved.
> > Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
> > --
>
>
.TM.
--
, it's a via-rhine?
I had problems with the 530. I've been told that the 538 (rtl8139) works
under the same load (NFS server on a small LAN, and a 5-ports D-Link Switch),
even with the old driver.
.TM.
--
____/ / /
/ / / M
d named DFE530TX VIA based and one named
DFE530TX+ rtl based? Isn't it a bit confusing? B-)
>
> Jim
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_
el
> --
> I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
> Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
e.
>
> -l
>
> --
> Linda A Walsh| Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice: (650) 933-5338
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / /
> Or am I being very stupid and overlooking something critical here?
Do you consider the above problem "critical"? B-)
>
> Have a nice day ;)
> Erik McKee
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
&
; 2.2.18pre1 (versus 2.2.17pre20)
fgrep Fix 2.2.18-changes | wc -l
16
B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _
gers. Fine. Maybe you don't like them because
you think they will prevent YOU from thinking about bugs the right way.
So they'll never make their way into YOUR kernel.
But please don't say that debuggers are bad for everyone... others may
be able to c
d the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / /
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> >
> > As you said, the are two kinds of reactions. I don't understand why you
> > think that the presence of a debugger will *prevent* people from doing
> > the
easing something under GPL is the feedback you
get for free, which sometimes happens to be high quality feedback,
contributions, bug-fixes, an so on. You get a better product, in the end,
and since you find it useful to you, in primis, it makes *your* life
easier.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___
why don't you just do the same?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubs
ssfully open the form page,
and after that stop for not being able to fill the template? You *really*
believe this is a likely scenario?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / /
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just upgraded our server (486DX2/120, running 186 days`) with a 100MBit
^^
isn't it overclocked?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / /
X should be close in performance).
The DPTA-372050 does 20MB/sec on an Athlon MB, BTW. A DTLA-307030 does
35.5MB/sec on AMD-751/6-based boards (UDMA/66). But you know that... B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
ok is that there will never be
a second edition. Of course the only release of Perfect OS will be 1.0!
B-) B-) B-) B-)
>
> -M
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please r
atible (a driver is slightly different in that
a HW company is probably worried about the internals of their HW).
>
> be nice if the binary module thing could be clarified by the copyright
> holders.
Of course.
>
> --paulj
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from th
anyway. B-) (at OOM time, I'd not even look at the nice of a process at
all. But my point here is that you do, and you take it as an hint for
process importance as percieved by the user that run it, and I believe
it's just wrong guessing).
.TM.
--
____/ __
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
> > > important.
> >
> > Please don&#x
nsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / /
loser to a sanity check to
disallow absurdly sized requests, IIRC.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
> The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
> ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
> stake. If they feel that some
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
> > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
> > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
> > C - is an
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing s
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
>
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want
om/q?s=MSFT, and take 2 seconds
to realize what that exactly means (both as a fact and as concept)
and reconsider the part "but you cannot fool all of the people
all of the time" (just s/people/business people/ and re-read). B-)
.TM.
--
___
issing something obvious?
Just write a small program that chroots, drop privileges, and
execs the untrusted daemon.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / /
tributes is fine). If an application
is not friendly (gives no hints on its VM behaviour) just punish it.
I mean, when tuning the VM behaviour, system health and friendly
applications performance are the goals - do whatever necessary to preserve
them, even kill the offen
to prevent application pages from being evicted. It won't solve
Mike's problem, that is.
>
> --
> Daniel
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/
stribute it. That's not like
everyone going to Oracle and say "Your SW is now GPLed, hand me the Source.
Resistance is Futile." ... GPL has a viral behaviour iff you want to
keep using the GPLed part that you included, or am I missing something?
.TM.
--
/ / /
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
> > still better eviction candidates compared to 8 hours old pages. Here
> > we need either another way to d
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2001 20:42, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
> > > still better eviction candidates com
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2001 12:33, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > Oh, yes, since that PAGE_AGE_BG_INTERACTIVE_MINIMUM is applied only
> > when background aging, maybe it's not enough to keep processes like
> > updatedb from causi
38 matches
Mail list logo
