David Miller wrote:
Tom is absolutely right, the situation is questionable at best,
so we have to take the safe course of action and now not accept
contributions from those who have gone so far as to publicly
state that they've read the Solaris code and thus are tainted.
It's unfortunate, but
Mark Fortescue wrote:
There is source code for Solaris 2.6 on the web. This is the best
source code reference you will get for sun4c as the low level code has
not been changed significantly from that of the architecture reference
kernel (SunOS 4.1 - see Sparc SCD 1.1).
This is VERY
This is VERY interesting as it should be possible to fix Sun4d by finding
the differences between sun4d and sun4m in Solaris and covering those points.
This would almost certainly be easier than trying to fix the current mess.
Unfortunately I am no longer able to do this but maybe someone
Mark Fortescue wrote:
This is VERY interesting as it should be possible to fix Sun4d by
finding
the differences between sun4d and sun4m in Solaris and covering those
points.
This would almost certainly be easier than trying to fix the current
mess. Unfortunately I am no longer able to
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 20:23 +0100, Chris Newport wrote:
Last Solaris support for sun4d was Solaris 2.8 so all of the code will
be there in 2.6 somewhere. Maybe it is just a special case within sun4m
with a few extra drivers, or maybe the code has not been released.
The SS1000 is
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 20:23 +0100, Chris Newport wrote:
Last Solaris support for sun4d was Solaris 2.8 so all of the code will
be there in 2.6 somewhere. Maybe it is just a special case within sun4m
with a few extra drivers, or maybe the code
From: Chris Newport [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:23:35 +0100
ISTR that Sun4d was a joint venture with Cray, so some code might
be encumbered. I have not seen code so I can only guess.
This is most likely the issue. The XBUS backplane designed jointly
with Cray is almost
From: Mark Fortescue [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:58:08 +0100 (BST)
Lawers may disagree :).
It is a very serious issue.
Even if the specific bits you are examining might be not care,
there are side effects to contamination on your part in the long
term.
Let's say, for example,
From: Tom \spot\ Callaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:27:24 -0400
I hate to be a bother here, but aren't there some legal concerns with
looking at Solaris source code, then implementing code in Linux?
Even on OpenSolaris, there is a grey area as to whether one can legally
