On Sep 8, 4:32pm, mar...@duskware.de (Martin Husemann) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/tests/lib/libc/sys
| On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:28:53PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > Why not add a test for == VM_MIN_ADDRESS too?
|
| If this is != NULL, we can not rely on it not to be mapped, so
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:28:53PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Why not add a test for == VM_MIN_ADDRESS too?
If this is != NULL, we can not rely on it not to be mapped, so I don't
see any additional value in that case. The brk+1 page test should be good
enough.
Martin
In article <20120908122506.92aa117...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
Martin Husemann wrote:
>Module Name: src
>Committed By: martin
>Date: Sat Sep 8 12:25:06 UTC 2012
>
>Modified Files:
> src/tests/lib/libc/sys: t_mlock.c
>
>Log Message:
>Make this compile on archs where VM_MIN_ADDRESS is not
martin@ wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:03:01PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > It would be better to start it after we get some RC2 feedback?
>
> You mean for -current?
Yes, I meant "the big revamp for all install media in -current" after RC2.
> We need to process #543 (or a variation of i
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:03:01PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> It would be better to start it after we get some RC2 feedback?
You mean for -current?
We need to process #543 (or a variation of it) to fix the sparc64 install
CDs.
Martin
On Sep 8, 2:39pm, mar...@duskware.de (Martin Husemann) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/etc
| On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:59:14AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > I think we have to keep using ipty and opty. It is less risky.
|
| I agree. I would suggest to modify the pending pullup #543 w
martin@ wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:59:14AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > I think we have to keep using ipty and opty. It is less risky.
>
> I agree. I would suggest to modify the pending pullup #543 with a
> patch (basically s/opty/ipty/) and be done for -6 with it.
If "ipty" entrie
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:59:14AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think we have to keep using ipty and opty. It is less risky.
I agree. I would suggest to modify the pending pullup #543 with a
patch (basically s/opty/ipty/) and be done for -6 with it.
Then lets start the "big" revamp for all i
martin@ wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:34:37AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > Probably we should also remove ipty from MAKEDEV "init" target
> > and also add the above "mount -t ptyfs ..." line into
> > src/distrib/{amd64,i386}/cdroms/etc.rc and
> > src/distrib/sparc64/cdroms/installcd/etc.r
