Re: OpenBSD crossed 400,000 commits

I was just reading what Stephan from ports wrote about the "Tor" based privacy suite. He thinks it's a little too outdated and offered to help, which is encouraging for people like myself. I bought the,"privacy suite" discs, with Linux magazines, and it cost me in excess of A$60/=.The Tecra M-

Re: OpenBSD crossed 400,000 commits

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:57:42PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Sometime in the last week OpenBSD crossed 400,000 commits (*) upon all > our repositories since starting at 1995/10/18 08:37:01 > Canada/Mountain. That's a lot of commits by a lot of amazing people. Great achievement! Time to pop a

OpenBSD crossed 400,000 commits

Sometime in the last week OpenBSD crossed 400,000 commits (*) upon all our repositories since starting at 1995/10/18 08:37:01 Canada/Mountain. That's a lot of commits by a lot of amazing people. (*) by one measure. Since the repository is so large and old, there are a variety of quirks including

Re: tsleep_nsec(9) for wsdisplay(4)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 05:47:04PM +0200, Frederic Cambus wrote: > Hi tech@, > > Here is a diff to convert all tsleep(9) calls in wsdisplay(4) > to tsleep_nsec(9). > > Comments? OK? > looks right, ok ratchov@ > Index: sys/dev/wscons/wsdisplay.c > ===

tsleep_nsec(9) for wsdisplay(4)

Hi tech@, Here is a diff to convert all tsleep(9) calls in wsdisplay(4) to tsleep_nsec(9). Comments? OK? Index: sys/dev/wscons/wsdisplay.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/wscons/wsdisplay.c,v retrieving revision 1.133 diff -u -p -r1.

Re: hppa: gsckbc(4), power(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > hppa runs at 100hz, so 10 ticks is 100ms. OK kn

Re: sgi: iockbc(4), mkbc(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:47:52AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > ok? OK kn

Re: i386: apm(4), esm(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:45:28AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > ok? OK kn

Re: sparc64: lom(4), sab(4), vldcp(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:27:14AM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > ok? OK kn

sgi: iockbc(4), mkbc(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

ok? Index: iockbc.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/sgi/dev/iockbc.c,v retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -p -r1.11 iockbc.c --- iockbc.c11 Feb 2015 07:05:39 - 1.11 +++ iockbc.c8 Oct 2019 13:46:58 - @@ -1056,7 +1056

i386: apm(4), esm(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

ok? Index: i386/apm.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/apm.c,v retrieving revision 1.119 diff -u -p -r1.119 apm.c --- i386/apm.c 22 May 2019 16:11:21 - 1.119 +++ i386/apm.c 8 Oct 2019 13:43:16 - @@ -907,7 +907,

hppa: gsckbc(4), power(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

hppa runs at 100hz, so 10 ticks is 100ms. ok? Index: dev/power.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/hppa/dev/power.c,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -p -r1.9 power.c --- dev/power.c 13 Jul 2014 09:09:16 - 1.9 +++ dev/power.c

bwfm: sync BSS channel restore code with iwn and iwm

Sync the BSS channel restore parts around ieee80211_input() with iwm and iwn. See: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=153407168731621&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=157052714901054&w=2 ok? Index: ic/bwfm.c === RCS file: /c

sparc64: lom(4), sab(4), vldcp(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

ok? Index: lom.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/sparc64/dev/lom.c,v retrieving revision 1.26 diff -u -p -r1.26 lom.c --- lom.c 5 Oct 2017 22:40:08 - 1.26 +++ lom.c 8 Oct 2019 13:25:36 - @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ l

Re: iwn: restore BSS channel only if BSS has not changed

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:31:02AM +0200, Tobias Heider wrote: > Restore the BSS channel only if iee80211_input() has not changed the BSS. > The same change was added to iwm a year ago, for a more detailed explanation > see https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=153407168731621&w=2 > > ok? > > Index

iwn: restore BSS channel only if BSS has not changed

Restore the BSS channel only if iee80211_input() has not changed the BSS. The same change was added to iwm a year ago, for a more detailed explanation see https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=153407168731621&w=2 ok? Index: sys/dev/pci/if_iwn.c ==

Octobre 1er jour

Bonjour hypra ! J'ai donc passé ma journée d'hier sur Evince et j'ai terminé une première implémentation en suivant les mêmes pratiques que pour GtkTextView. Le code ci-dessous est aussi disponible dans sa branche, sur: https://gitlab.gnome.org/mpieuchot/evince/tree/issue1203 J'ai eu un

Re: snmp(1): Better index checking on pdu error.

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:36:27AM +0200, Martijn van Duren wrote: > ping. I think this (or similar) fix should go in before release. > > On 10/3/19 5:33 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote: > > As discussed with semarie@ this morning: We're a bit too loose when it > > comes to accessing indexes based dir

Re: snmp(1): don't leak ber_element on ber_printf_elements fail

ping On 10/3/19 6:35 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote: > So looking closer at Claudio's remark from this morning I found that 'e' > basically *must* be the last element in the sequence (or weird *beep* > happens). Also, 'e' never fails, since ber_link_elements doesn't have a > fail-case. So combining t

Re: snmp(1): Better index checking on pdu error.

ping. I think this (or similar) fix should go in before release. On 10/3/19 5:33 PM, Martijn van Duren wrote: > As discussed with semarie@ this morning: We're a bit too loose when it > comes to accessing indexes based directly from the pdu. > > Diff below allows only indexes within the range of t