gt;>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:47:31PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is there a reason that this we would ever, under normal circumstances,
> >>>> want to use RMW on these devices? Is there a reason that this
KzEsIGFuZCArMSB0byBhIGZ1dHVyZSBwcm9qZWN0IHRvIHVzZSB0aGVzZSBmbGFncyBpbiBPTi4g
IFRoYW5rcyEKCiAgLSBHYXJyZXR0CgpBbGkgQmFocmFtaSA8QWxpLkJhaHJhbWlAb3JhY2xlLmNv
bT4gd3JvdGU6Cgo+SSBhbSBzcG9uc29yaW5nIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgZmFzdHRyYWNrIGZvciBt
eXNlbGYgLS0tIHRpbWVvdXQgOC8xMS8yMDEwLgo+SXQgYWRkcyB0aHJlZSBuZXcgb3B0
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 09:56 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> On 07/30/10 09:36, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:04 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> >>> I also don't like the %2f encoding, not so much for this part
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:04 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> > I also don't like the %2f encoding, not so much for this particular
> > case, but because it sets a bad precedent, and the standard unix text
> > filtering commands don't have any support for that sort of escapin
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 10:59 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
> > > name of the packages delivering the file. For example, system/kernel
> > > would deliver etc/sock2path.d/system%2Fkernel.
> >
> > Its not r
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:59 -0700, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
> I am sponsoring this fast-track for Anders Persson. Timeout is set for
> 08/06/2010.
>
> -Artem
>
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
> This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates.
> All r
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 08:52 -0400, Roger A. Faulkner wrote:
> On 07/29/10 08:26, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
> > "Roger A. Faulkner" wrote:
> >
> >> ===
> >>
> >> #include
> >>
> >> ssize_t getdelim(char **res
+1
These all look good!
- Garrett
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 19:41 -0400, Roger A. Faulkner wrote:
> I am sponsoring this fast-track case for myself.
> Timeout is Wednesday, 08/04/2010
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> This case adds 28 new functions to the C library, all in the
> name of
+1.
- Garrett
___
opensolaris-arc mailing list
opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
I'm really confused here. Why run in an emulation mode at all? It
seems like we can align and use 4K blocks directly, then we should
*always* do so - at least for those devices which have a 4K physical
block size. The "emulated" block size might be helpful for legacy OS,
but we can do better, ca
I think removing things that users are likely to type is better. We
want to discourage /etc from showing up in $PATH, so from my point of
view this is supportive of that.
I also think the opportunity to do this is *now*, while we've made a
large number of other incompatible changes to the system
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 20:01 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > One possible exception to that concern is rmt. I worry that "/etc/rmt"
> > may be hard coded into software that would be using remote tape
> > facilities. While I doubt there
To my mind, its about time!
The question I have is 3rd party software. Candidates that seem to be
likely to be used by ISVs:
autopush
fstyp
install
mknod
mount
rmt (this one may have implications for interop with BSD systems)
tar
ua
Looks good to me, +1.
Question: are these events recorded as "synthetic" events to X, or are
they indistinguishable to X and apps from real keypresses?
-- Garrett
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 23:30 -0700, Fuyuki Hasegawa wrote:
> I'm sponsoring this fast-track case for Noayuki. The time is set
Many other vendors provide chassis besides Sun/Oracle. I'm a bit
disappointed that these are Sun Private. Is there some reason that they
are not appropriate for Uncommitted status?
- Garrett
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 14:34 -0600, Tim Haley wrote:
> I am sponsoring this case on behalf of Ta
+1. Which should be no real surprise since I was originally working on
this project. :-)
- Garrett
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 11:59 -0700, Phi Tran wrote:
> I'm sponsoring this case for Kerry Shu with a requested patch release binding.
>
> Phi
>
> Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 07:14 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > I confess that using read/write with textual commands seems awkward and
> > inefficient -- I'd have thought a simple ioctl interface would have been
> > better. It seems like m
I confess that using read/write with textual commands seems awkward and
inefficient -- I'd have thought a simple ioctl interface would have been
better. It seems like mmap() has facilities that could handle this
arbitration elegantly; or is the problem to provide an interface without
updating any
That's what I thought, thanks.
-- Garrett
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:47 +0200, Enrico Perla wrote:
> so I don't think we should miss any scenario with USB media (without
> limiting to the liveusb case).
> We are keeping the PCFS support.
>
> Thanks,
_
+1. I'm assuming that this won't affect USB flash media.
- Garrett
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 14:53 -0700, Jerry Gilliam wrote:
> I'm sponsoring this case on behalf of Jan Setje-Eilers
> as a fast-track, with timeout set to 07/23/2010.
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> This case requests the
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:13 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 01:20 +0200, ольга крыжановская wrote:
> >> The comment was in reply to your mail to Asa about closing this case.
> >> Sorry for the out of order mail.
>
nobody at Oracle
really *wants* to fix the process. After all, it works perfectly well
for Oracle's needs.
-- Garrett
>
> Olga
>
> 2010/7/8 ольга крыжановская :
> > What about your concerns for 3rd party vendors and the community?
> >
> > Olga
> >
&
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 15:39 -0700, Asa Romberger wrote:
> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+arc/ARCAgenda/
>
> = OpenSolaris ARC Agenda
>
> = TELECONFERENCE NUMBERS:
>
> (866)682-4770 (Within US)
> (408)774-4073 (International)
> ACCESS CODE 3950943
> SECURITY CODE 6736
> Times
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 12:07 -0700, Ted H. Kim wrote:
> Just to continue the discussion started at the 7/7 PSARC meeting ...
>
> Ted H. Kim wrote:
> > Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >> So this case is just plumbing details?
>
> If I understand what you mean by that, t
Yes
> Michael Kearney no
> Richard Matthewsno
> Bill Sommerfeld (on sabbatical)
>
> Mark Martin no (external)
> Garrett D'Amore no (external)
>
> STAFF -
> Asa Romberger
I'm a bit concerned that we may be premature in EOF'ing AMR. While
*Sun* customers probably didn't use this driver on Sun hardware, the
driver remains in the open source tree, and appears to have been sold
by Dell fairly recently.
If Oracle wants to elide this driver from Solaris 11 or Solaris N
ded" by
> > 2010/252. Please work with this case owner (Phi Tran) to get the
> > right thing done (I'm not sure who Jim is).
> Name: Solaris ATCA IPMI Driver
> Submitter: Kevin Song
> Owner: Garrett D'Amore
> Intern: Jim Walk
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 09:58 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 30/06/2010 23:47, Ted H. Kim wrote:
> > I think this is where things are ending up.
> >
> > umad to use protection 666 and PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG
> > ucma reserved ports uses PRIV_NET_PRIVADDR
> > uverbs privileged Q_Keys uses PRIV_NET_PRI
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:11 -0700, Seth Goldberg wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:46 -0700, Barry Harding wrote:
> >>
> >> Ipmitool can be changed over to use OpenIPMI and I believe in fact that
t would be the far superior
approach.
- Garrett
>
> Barry
>
> Phi Tran wrote:
> > On 06/30/10 13:54, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 13:40 -0700, Seth Goldberg wrote:
> >>> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:05 -0700, Ted H. Kim wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > So this case is just plumbing details?
>
> If that is what you want to call IBTF and hermon.
>
> > I'm a bit concerned that the case is incomplete without the FCoIB ULP
> >
ether with the
ULP driver?
- Garrett
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 13:48 -0700, Ted H. Kim wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > So, this FCoIB driver, will it be a separate driver, that lives above
> > IBTF?
>
> yes, there will be a separate FCoIB ULP driver client over I
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 13:40 -0700, Seth Goldberg wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
> > Generally, I think this project is doing the right things. But a few
> > issues:
> >
> > a) BMC API is listed as Consolidation Private.
Generally, I think this project is doing the right things. But a few
issues:
a) BMC API is listed as Consolidation Private. Are there consumers
outside of ON? If not, then you could probably just nuke the BMC API.
If there *are*, then you are automatically no longer Consolidation
Private, but a
So, this FCoIB driver, will it be a separate driver, that lives above
IBTF? Can it in theory support any IB HCA, or is hermon the only way to
provide this functionality (is it custom firmware on the HCA?)
Also, I'd like to understand the interaction between all of the drivers
in the FCoE stack...
+1
-- Garrett
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 21:45 +0100, Pete Dennis wrote:
> The timer is about to complete on this but no +1's received
> (I'm not going to count the +1 for the previous proposal
> as it has changed with respect to the usage of the environment
> variables).
>
> pete
>
> __
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 18:38 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:06:34PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > Presumably uname -S and "hostname" will be modified to to update the SMF
> > property as well as read it (likewise for "domainname&qu
gt; service.
But isn't there already an SMF service for nis/client? It seems like
that is where this belongs? (Or perhaps nis/server? Both?)
I'd be interested to hear what the networking folks think.
- Garrett
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> On 06/18/10 03:06
Presumably uname -S and "hostname" will be modified to to update the SMF
property as well as read it (likewise for "domainname"?) Also, what
about sys-unconfig(1M)? (Or has that already been obsoleted elsewhere?)
I wonder if system/identity:domain would better be named to reflect how
this is use
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 20:04 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 17/06/2010 19:29, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > I don't think it is necessarily true that these decisions or review, or
> > even a review of the process itself, have to be in the "open", but I do
&g
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 17:12 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 17/06/2010 16:21, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > While ARC may or may not be the best place to review changes to the
> > certificate list (it probably isn't), I think we should like to know how
> > rev
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 10:54 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
My only concern is this paragraph:
>
> The project team reserves the right to revise the exact list of
> certificates and/or choose an entirely different source of certifcates
> at anytime without requiring further ARC review.
>
While A
PSARC mail from
my mobile.
- Garrett
On 06/10/10 11:37, ольга крыжановская wrote:
How long did you type on the text below? :)
Something is wrong, either list or mail app.
Olga
2010/6/10 Garrett D'Amore:
KzEKClBldGVyIERlbm5pcyA8cGV0ZXIuZGVubmlzQG9yYWNsZS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg
KzEKClBldGVyIERlbm5pcyA8cGV0ZXIuZGVubmlzQG9yYWNsZS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgoKPkJlbG93
IGlzIGFuIGFtZW5kZWQgcHJvcG9zYWwuIFRpbWVyIGlzIG5vdCByZXNldCBhcyBpdCBlc3NlbnRp
YWxseQo+Y2xhcmlmaWVzIHRoZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHNvIGZhci4KPgo+UmVxdWlyZWQgcmVsZWFz
ZSBiaW5kaW5nOgo+ICAgICBQYXRjaCBiaW5kaW5nIGZvciB0aGUgYW5ub3VuY2VtZW50
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:03 -0700, Scott Rotondo wrote:
> Several people have pointed out that the harm from removing these
> commands isn't that great because
>
> (a) recent scripts tend not to use this mechanism to figure out the type
> of platform, and
>
> (b) older scripts will still work (
:57, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
> >> Hi Garrett and Darren,
> >>
> >> On 06/08/10 09:35 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:04 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >>>> On 08/06/2010 07:11, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
> >>>>&g
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:04 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 08/06/2010 07:11, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
> > Hi Darren,
> >
> > On 06/07/10 06:06 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Bart I don't approve of the removal of this command.
> >> Cleaning up SFW is fine but don't throw out us
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 11:59 +0200, Steve McKinty wrote:
> Why are these "not relevant"? In my experience they are mostly
> used in scripts and Makefiles, to ensure that the right code path
> is taken. Won't removing them break older configure-style scripts,
> i.e. ones that test things like "if [ !
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 11:51 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> On 06/04/10 11:36, Suhasini Peddada wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am submitting the fasttrak to obsolete pwgen from SFW Consolidation for
> > Lukas Rovensky and seeking a patch binding. Time out is Jun 11th, 2010.
> >
> >
>
> This makes no sens
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 20:20 -0400, Mark Haywood wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:01 -0400, Mark Haywood wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/ 2/10 01:43 PM, James Carlson wrote:
> >>
> >>> James Carlson wrote:
> >>&g
+1.
-- Garrett
___
opensolaris-arc mailing list
opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:01 -0400, Mark Haywood wrote:
> On 06/ 2/10 01:43 PM, James Carlson wrote:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> >
> >> That's the part that still confuses me. I'd expected that, just as
> >> installation was "based on" NWAM in OpenSolaris, this would be the
> >> pattern for the
+1. I'd love an option to select only the output for a given driver or
a given cpu, in addition to the sort facility. I guess grep, cut, awk,
and friends can be used to extract that though. :-)
- Garrett
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 11:54 -0700, Govinda Tatti wrote:
> I'm sponsoring the follow
Since no one else saw fit to comment constructively, or argue against
the removal of (or derail this case *again*) these utilities following
the fast track rules, this case has been marked closed approved.
Thank you. (And thank you also to my anonymous remote hands for making
the change to the IA
10 12:52 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:47:48PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 5/26/2010 12:25 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:41:51AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Also, your stability levels need to be modernized
On 5/26/2010 12:25 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:41:51AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Also, your stability levels need to be modernized. We don't use
Evolving and Unstable anymore.. Perhaps you mean Uncommitted and
Volatile?
DTrace sticks
This case seems like a good thing, but I'm not an expert enough on
Kerberos to know if it meets all the needs that folks are going to
want. I'd like to hear, if possible, from other folks more intimate
with Kerberos before giving this a +1.
Also, your stability levels need to be modernized.
tween the mailing list software and the base 64 encoding.
(As to why it chose to encode it in base 64... that is a mystery.)
- Garrett
On 5/25/2010 5:17 PM, Jan Setje-Eilers wrote:
On 05/25/10 16:58, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Which decodes too:
>
> So +1 on the case, since
U28gKzEgb24gdGhlIGNhc2UsIHNpbmNlIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMgc2VlbSBzZXR0bGVkIG5vdy4KCiAg
IC0tIEdhcnJldHQKCiJzZXRoLmdvbGRiZXJnQG9yYWNsZS5jb20iIDxzZXRoLmdvbGRiZXJnQG9y
YWNsZS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgoKPgo+Cj5PbiBNYXkgMjUsIDIwMTAsIGF0IDQ6MjAgUE0sIFNjb3R0
IFJvdG9uZG8gPHNjb3R0LnJvdG9uZG9Ab3JhY2xlLmNvbT4gIAo+d3JvdGU6Cj4KPj4g
On 5/21/2010 9:05 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
At Garrett's request I've reset the status of the case to
"waiting fast-track 05/28/2010".
Thanks. The rationale here is that meaty substance has already been
discussed/reviewed before. What's different is that we won't be
delivering GNU pl
#x27;ll be going through request-sponsor from here on out, I guess. :-)
I have to run, and won't have time to update the IAM file on this case
before I lose access to do so today -- perhaps someone else who's an ARC
member could do so for me? Thanks.
- Garrett
On 05/17/10 10:49, G
Does it make sense to use some special value (zero or -1) to mean
uninitialized? That way could at least preserve the type.
-- Garrett
Felix Feng wrote:
>> I think this is a good change. But I'd like to see more sample values
>> for the valid values of these properties -- the type of astr
+1
-- Garrett
Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
>This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
>rights reserved.
>1. Introduction
>1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>PKCS#11 URI parser for libcryptoutil
>
On 05/20/10 02:06 PM, I. Szczesniak wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Don Cragun wrote:
The reason that LOGNAME_MAX was stuck at 8 in for so long
is that the System V ABIs and the SCDs require that value.
Solaris 10 has been breaking ABI requirements around the edges for a
few years
I concur fully with Nico on this one. Further, customers requiring
strict compliance can run an S10 zone. I think we're no longer in
1980's style SVID anymore -- already there have been other issues where
we have deviated -- from certain ZFS semantics to packaging, so that
we're no longer tra
+1, thanks for the great background research on this. (Even with the
typo in the title.)
- Garrett
On 05/20/10 09:01 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
rights reserved.
I think this is a good change. But I'd like to see more sample values
for the valid values of these properties -- the type of astring is a bit
.. hmm... non-specific. (And furthermore, perhaps some of the values
should actually take more specifically typed data, e.g. numbers or
booleans?
Th
+1.
- Garrett
On 05/19/10 04:38 PM, Ted Kim wrote:
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
Multiple IPoIB instances per
+1
-- Garrett
On 05/17/10 13:53, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
This case is set to timeout today, but has received no +1 - is any ARC member
available to review it or do I need to extend the timer?
-alan-
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I am sponsoring this fast-track for myself, and have se
On 05/17/10 10:36, Bart Smaalders wrote:
On 05/14/10 22:41, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
While this case was approved, with the idea that these utilities would
be replaced by integrating the GNU plotutils suite, I'd like to change
direction somewhat.
Specifically, it seems that /co
While this case was approved, with the idea that these utilities would
be replaced by integrating the GNU plotutils suite, I'd like to change
direction somewhat.
Specifically, it seems that /contrib is a superior delivery mechanism
for these tools. I don't believe that there is a compelling n
+1.
I always felt the interfaces were not really appropriate for generic
drivers to use.
- Garrett
On 05/13/10 03:19 PM, Govinda Tatti wrote:
I'm sponsoring the following fasttrack for Evan Yan. The timer is
set to expire on 05/20/2010.
- Govinda
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase
On 05/12/10 04:58 AM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Roland Mainz wrote:
The sharefs system call would be changed to accept: a protocol discriminator
(NFS or SMB), an operation (publish or unpublish) and an opaque pointer to
share data. The opaque data passes transparently thr
The case seems reasonable enough (far less contentious than I first had
guessed from the title alone). +1.
- Garrett
On 05/ 7/10 02:20 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
I am sponsoring this case for the X team. The timer is set for one week
from today, May 14, 2010. The case requests a patc
to be
business justification), so you could have approval by then.
- Garrett
-jan
On 05/10/10 13:37, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
In my opinion, changing the binding of 2008/760 is not entirely
unreasonable, but 2008/760 makes references to fast reboot, and so
you're not really
rence to 2008/760. Indeed, it seems that what you want
to do for *this* case is significant enough that it ought to be
described in a case of its own anyway.
- Garrett
On 05/ 6/10 03:24 PM, Gangadhar Mylapuram wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 05/ 5/10 07:12 AM, Gangadhar Mylap
On 05/ 6/10 08:32 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 04:06:31PM +0800, Kacheong Poon wrote:
Suppose the process is able to exit but the socket lingers. In that
case will the lingering socket defeat resource controls?
I guess your concern is that somehow the peer go
Seems straight forward enough. +1
- Garrett
On 05/ 5/10 01:31 PM, Liane Praza wrote:
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
On 05/ 5/10 01:02 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 12:58:33PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On 05/ 5/10 12:48 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
What happens when a socket in FIN_WAIT2 is close()d, or a process exits
and a socket is closed and ends up in FIN_WAIT2
On 05/ 5/10 12:48 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
What happens when a socket in FIN_WAIT2 is close()d, or a process exits
and a socket is closed and ends up in FIN_WAIT2? If the FIN_WAIT2 timer
is set to 2^31, what happens?
Suppose the process is able to exit but the socket lingers. In that
case w
On 05/ 5/10 11:32 AM, Kacheong Poon wrote:
On 05/ 6/10 02:05 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. The concern I have is that while an app
can achieve the same resource exhaustion by opening multiple files, we
*do* have ways to limit the total number of open files th
, Kacheong Poon wrote:
On 05/ 6/10 12:42 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
1) Can an ill-behaved application cause bad things to happen to the TCP
stack by setting RTO or abort timers too high? I'm specifically thinking
that by setting these timers to a large value, that it might be possible
to
I didn't see the mail for this, but I've reviewed the case history on
sac.sfbay. It seems reasonable, but I do have some questions:
1) Can an ill-behaved application cause bad things to happen to the TCP
stack by setting RTO or abort timers too high? I'm specifically
thinking that by setting
On 05/ 5/10 09:22 AM, Liane Praza wrote:
On 05/05/10 08:53, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Obsolete Committed seems unfortunate -- is there a reason this needs to
be Committed? It seems like this could be decommitted somewhat for the
Solaris Next release? Is this file used on Solaris 10? (I
On 05/ 5/10 08:48 AM, Liane Praza wrote:
On 05/05/10 06:59, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I tend to agree that from an architectural perspective, the site.xml
might better be handled as Obsolete -- it seems that the new mechanism
is superior.
The new mechanism is identical, so the site.xml loc
On 05/ 5/10 07:12 AM, Gangadhar Mylapuram wrote:
Hi,
I request to change the PSARC 2008/760 binding from micro to patch.
Fast reboot related properties will not be backported.
boot-config service can also be used by consumers other than fast-reboot
project.
Thanks,
Gangadhar
Can you please e
I tend to agree that from an architectural perspective, the site.xml
might better be handled as Obsolete -- it seems that the new mechanism
is superior.
I also agree that Patch (as specified in the document) is fine for this
case.
- Garrett
On 05/ 4/10 12:14 PM, John Fischer wrote:
Ton
+1 on the case, and on it being self-review.
- Garrett
On 05/ 4/10 02:56 PM, Liane Praza wrote:
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
rights reserved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Workin
+1
-- Garrett
John Fischer wrote:
>
>Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.70 03/30/10 SMI
>This information is Copyright (c) 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All
>rights reserved.
>1. Introduction
>1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
>Removing awstats from SFW
>1.2. Name
+1 on the case, and +1 on Darren's request.
-- Garrett
Darren J Moffat wrote:
>On 29/04/2010 18:52, John Fischer wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I am sponsoring this case for Stefan Teleman of the SFW group.
>> The case directory contains this proposal and the appendix
>> material. I have set the timer
On 04/28/10 09:50 AM, Gary Winiger wrote:
On 04/27/10 23:44, Jim Walker wrote:
Here is the opinion for PSARC/2010/059 SNAP BE Management.
http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/059/opinion_draft.txt
I request a commitment email vote.
Approve.
Gary..
I approve. (I thought I ha
12:26 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On OpenSolaris/Solaris.Next, we have a new audio API (OSS), which is
simpler, more performant, and quite possibly more reliable. Will the
new flash player make use of the OSS API, or will it still use the
legacy Sun audio interfaces?
- Garrett
On 04/1
On 04/20/10 08:27 AM, Mark Phalan wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 08:14 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
This all looks pretty good. I'd like to see an actual list of the mdb
macros and DTrace probes that have been proposed.
Expect more cases exposing the Dtrace probes (soo
This all looks pretty good. I'd like to see an actual list of the mdb
macros and DTrace probes that have been proposed. Furthermore, I'd like
some independent analysis from the project team (if possible) to confirm
that the new debugging enhancements can't result in leakage of sensitive
data
On OpenSolaris/Solaris.Next, we have a new audio API (OSS), which is
simpler, more performant, and quite possibly more reliable. Will the
new flash player make use of the OSS API, or will it still use the
legacy Sun audio interfaces?
- Garrett
On 04/15/10 12:05 PM, John Fischer wrote:
T
On 04/14/10 09:33 AM, Joel Buckley wrote:
Jim,
I believe this is incorrectly included in Live Update interfaces:
luxadmObsolete [1]
Cheers,
Joel.
Nice catch Joel -- that *clearly* doesn't belong here.
Modulo fixing that problem, I'm going to say for the record th
For my nickel's worth, I think that there is little or no cause to
enable the administrator to skip the dump -- Solaris, and OpenSolaris,
*are* enterprise grade operating systems. While some people may be
using it on desktops and such, the real motivation for both of these is
for use in Enterp
On 04/12/10 02:15 PM, Alan Wright wrote:
Thanks for the +1.
My main concern is that smbstat is a consumer and using a consumer
as a vehicle for documenting a consumed interface doesn't seem
appropriate - both as a mechanism and for traceability. I'd really
prefer that this case remain a simple
On 04/ 9/10 05:47 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
Alan Wright wrote:
I honestly can't see what value a list would add to this case.
I agree. Note also that some have held that once you have put a
Project Private interface into an ARC case, you must run an ARC case
to make any changes to it. That s
I think you should file changes, but can do so with a self-review case or even
just an email update to the original case. So not free, but really cheap.
-- Garrett
Jordan Brown wrote:
>Alan Wright wrote:
>> I honestly can't see what value a list would add to this case.
>
>I agree. Note al
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
