> > Document that RFC 5905 (ie. NTP protocol) has a limit which will be
> > hit before Y2038.
>
> RFC868?
No.
Apparently you cannot use google or such before you send a mail.
> p.s. Do you think there is *any* chance of getting long long in as
> rfc5905 is sometimes used as a reference for othe
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 06:10:27 -0700 (MST)
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Document that RFC 5905 (ie. NTP protocol) has a limit which will be
> hit before Y2038.
RFC868?
p.s. Do you think there is *any* chance of getting long long in as
rfc5905 is sometimes used as a reference for other time format
standa
Peter Hessler [phess...@openbsd.org] wrote:
> On 2014 Oct 17 (Fri) at 12:12:07 +0100 (+0100), Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> :On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:55:00 -0600 (MDT)
> :Ted Unangst wrote:
> :
> :> remove performance throttling code from here, use the kernel version
> :> instead. this effectively kills -C
On 2014 Oct 17 (Fri) at 12:12:07 +0100 (+0100), Kevin Chadwick wrote:
:On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:55:00 -0600 (MDT)
:Ted Unangst wrote:
:
:> remove performance throttling code from here, use the kernel version
:> instead. this effectively kills -C, though the option is kept for compat.
:
:>> redo the p
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:55:00 -0600 (MDT)
Ted Unangst wrote:
> remove performance throttling code from here, use the kernel version
> instead. this effectively kills -C, though the option is kept for compat.
>> redo the performance throttling in the kernel.
>> introduce a new sysctl, hw.perfpolicy
