Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 07:23:13PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:26:40PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:02:10AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19

Re: dwiic(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-02-19 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 06:54:26PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > Ticks to milliseconds. > > ok? Bump and rebase. 1/2 seconds, so, 500 milliseconds. ok? Index: dwiic.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/dwiic.c,v retrieving revision

Re: pcmcia(4): i82365.c: tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-02-19 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:31:28PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > Ticks to milliseconds. > > ok? Bump. 1/4 seconds, so, 250 milliseconds. Index: ic/i82365.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/i82365.c,v retrieving revision 1.37 diff

pgt(4): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-02-19 Thread Scott Cheloha
1/10 seconds, so, 100 milliseconds. ok? Index: ic/pgt.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/ic/pgt.c,v retrieving revision 1.97 diff -u -p -r1.97 pgt.c --- ic/pgt.c9 Jan 2020 14:35:19 - 1.97 +++ ic/pgt.c20 Feb 2020 01:29

Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:26:40PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:02:10AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > >

Re: iked(8): add transport mode for childsas

2020-02-19 Thread Klemens Nanni
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:09:10PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote: > here is an update of the last diff rebased onto current with minor fixes. > There > were some problems when multiple transport and non-transport policies were > configured, which should now be fixed. > I also have a test case for the

Re: [patch] config(8) and KARL usage

2020-02-19 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 19/02/20(Wed) 14:13, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:40:24AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > Hello Sebastien, > > > > On 17/01/18(Wed) 10:19, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > > [...] > > > kernel modification is desirable in some cases, at least for disabling > > > ulpt(4) wh

Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:02:10AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > FFS1, the default filesystem, uses 32-bit signed timestamps on disk.

Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:02:10AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > FFS1, the default filesystem, uses 32-bit signed timestamps on disk. > > That means that in 2038, there's going to be a problem, timestamps > > wi

Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:02:10AM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > FFS1, the default filesystem, uses 32-bit signed timestamps on disk. > > That means that in 2038, there's going to be a problem, timestamps > > wi

Re: ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > [...] > > FFS1, the default filesystem, uses 32-bit signed timestamps on disk. > That means that in 2038, there's going to be a problem, timestamps > will the be interperet as coming from the start of the 1900's. > > FFS2 does no

mbr booting from ffs2

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
Hi, booting from an ffs2 filesystem is a puzzle containing many pieces. For amd64 and i386 mbr booting, the pieces below are needed. Lifted from an old bitrig tree. Note that this is *not* enough to get thing going since boot(8) and its variants do not support ffs2 yet, but for this diff I'm on

Generic flags field in struct filterops

2020-02-19 Thread Visa Hankala
Eventually, it will become necessary to add new properties to struct filterops. One such property is whether the filter is safe to use without the kernel lock. The diff below replaces the f_isfd field with a generic flags field in struct filterops, to allow adding new properties without cluttering

ffs1 and the future

2020-02-19 Thread Otto Moerbeek
Hoi, FFS1, the default filesystem, uses 32-bit signed timestamps on disk. That means that in 2038, there's going to be a problem, timestamps will the be interperet as coming from the start of the 1900's. FFS2 does not have this limitation, but at the moment, we cannot boot from it. I'm working on

Re: [patch] config(8) and KARL usage

2020-02-19 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:40:24AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > Hello Sebastien, > > On 17/01/18(Wed) 10:19, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > [...] > > kernel modification is desirable in some cases, at least for disabling > > ulpt(4) when using cups with USB printer. > > Sorry to hijack your threa

Re: IPv6 Support for umb(4)

2020-02-19 Thread Gerhard Roth
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:45:39 +0100 Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:16:54PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2020/02/18 13:40, Gerhard Roth wrote: > > > > > Yes, I tried MBIM_CONTEXT_IPTYPE_IPV4ANDV6 myself first but to no > > > > > avail. The switched to MBIM_CONTEXT_IPTY