In message: <20090909010833.ga12...@netbsd.org>
David Holland writes:
: On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:02:33AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > __NetBSD__ is the *COMPILER* environment. Depending on it is *BAD*.
: > You need to use a different symbol. This is a bug in the NetBSD code
:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:02:33AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> __NetBSD__ is the *COMPILER* environment. Depending on it is *BAD*.
> You need to use a different symbol. This is a bug in the NetBSD code
> now. __NetBSD__ isn't, and never has bene, the KERNEL.
No need to shout...
Anyway, w
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:00:30AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> >sbus_establish() should take device_t self for the device itself,
> >not device_t parent even if sbus is grandparent of the device,
> >otherwise (*sd_reset)() callbacks will be called with an wrong device_t.
> >Even i
On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 20:57:59 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: pooka
> Date: Tue Sep 8 20:57:59 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/dev: rnd.c
>
> Log Message:
> rnd_wakeup_readers() uses rndpool_mtx for its own consistency
> management, so it cann
>sbus_establish() should take device_t self for the device itself,
>not device_t parent even if sbus is grandparent of the device,
>otherwise (*sd_reset)() callbacks will be called with an wrong device_t.
>Even in such case, sbus_establish() looks for an sbus though device tree.
>
Module Name: src
Committed By:tsutsui
Date:Tue Sep 8 18:31:36 UTC 2009
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/sbus: esp_sbus.c if_le_lebuffer.c if_le_ledma.c
Log Message:
sbus_establish() should take device_t self for the device itself,
not device
In message: <20090908162339.ga11...@cs.hut.fi>
Antti Kantee writes:
: On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 12:18:57 -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
: > | : No, __NetBSD__ is right. For all purposes, code in the rump kernel *is*
: > | : NetBSD. E.g. if you have #ifdef __NetBSD__ in a kernel driver whi
In article <20090908162339.ga11...@cs.hut.fi>,
ntti Kantee wrote:
>
>Whoever finds this churn worth their effort, as dh pointed out, remember
>to replace all instances of __FreeBSD__, __OpenBSD__, __Linux__,
>__Slowaris__, __sMackOS__, __etc__ as well.
The issue here is
On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 16:33:02 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20090908162339.ga11...@cs.hut.fi>,
> ntti Kantee wrote:
> >
> >Whoever finds this churn worth their effort, as dh pointed out, remember
> >to replace all instances of __FreeBSD__, __OpenBSD__, __Linux__,
> >__Slowaris__, _
In article <20090908162339.ga11...@cs.hut.fi>,
ntti Kantee wrote:
>
>Whoever finds this churn worth their effort, as dh pointed out, remember
>to replace all instances of __FreeBSD__, __OpenBSD__, __Linux__,
>__Slowaris__, __sMackOS__, __etc__ as well.
The issue here is that we really don't want
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 06:07:57PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 02:30:56PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> >>> Perhaps a better test would be that dhcpcd shouldn't touch
> >>> the default route unless the default route is through the
> >>> in
On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 12:18:57 -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | : No, __NetBSD__ is right. For all purposes, code in the rump kernel *is*
> | : NetBSD. E.g. if you have #ifdef __NetBSD__ in a kernel driver which
> | : was imported from $OtherOS, you must have the rump version think it is
> | : r
On Sep 8, 10:02am, i...@bsdimp.com ("M. Warner Losh") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/rump
| In message: <20090908131801.gb17...@cs.hut.fi>
| Antti Kantee writes:
| : On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 13:02:55 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| : > In article <20090907174634.ga16...@cs.hu
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 02:30:56PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
>>> Perhaps a better test would be that dhcpcd shouldn't touch
>>> the default route unless the default route is through the
>>> interface that dhcpcd is managing.
>> I agree.
>> How should dhcpcd deal with
In message: <20090908131801.gb17...@cs.hut.fi>
Antti Kantee writes:
: On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 13:02:55 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
: > In article <20090907174634.ga16...@cs.hut.fi>,
: > Antti Kantee wrote:
: > >On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 03:28:35 +1000, matthew green wrote:
: > >>
: > >>
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 02:30:56PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > Perhaps a better test would be that dhcpcd shouldn't touch
> > the default route unless the default route is through the
> > interface that dhcpcd is managing.
>
> I agree.
> How should dhcpcd deal with /etc/resolv.conf ?
> If dh
On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 13:25:39 +, David Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > No, __NetBSD__ is right. For all purposes, code in the rump kernel *is*
> > NetBSD. E.g. if you have #ifdef __NetBSD__ in a kernel driver which
> > was imported from $
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> No, __NetBSD__ is right. For all purposes, code in the rump kernel *is*
> NetBSD. E.g. if you have #ifdef __NetBSD__ in a kernel driver which
> was imported from $OtherOS, you must have the rump version think it is
> running on N
On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 13:02:55 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20090907174634.ga16...@cs.hut.fi>,
> Antti Kantee wrote:
> >On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 03:28:35 +1000, matthew green wrote:
> >>
> >>Module Name:src
> >>Committed By: pooka
> >>Date: Mon Sep 7 13:0
In article <20090907174634.ga16...@cs.hut.fi>,
Antti Kantee wrote:
>On Tue Sep 08 2009 at 03:28:35 +1000, matthew green wrote:
>>
>>Module Name: src
>>Committed By: pooka
>>Date: Mon Sep 7 13:02:37 UTC 2009
>>
>>Modified Files:
>> src/sys/rump: Make
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > > Do not flush routes if root file system is nfs mounted.
> > > > Fixes boot problem when the nfs server is in a different
> > > > subnet.
> > >
> > > Why do you need this special case code, when a simple
> > > flushroutes=NO in /etc/rc.conf wil
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > > Do not flush routes if root file system is nfs mounted.
> > > Fixes boot problem when the nfs server is in a different
> > > subnet.
> >
> > Why do you need this special case code, when a simple
> > flushroutes=NO in /etc/rc.conf will do the job?
>
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > Modified Files:
> > src/etc/rc.d: network
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Do not flush routes if root file system is nfs mounted.
> > Fixes boot problem when the nfs server is in a different
> > subnet.
>
> Why do you need this special case code, wh
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Modified Files:
> src/etc/rc.d: network
>
> Log Message:
> Do not flush routes if root file system is nfs mounted.
> Fixes boot problem when the nfs server is in a different subnet.
Why do you need this special case code, when a simple flushrout
24 matches
Mail list logo
