> On 10 Mar 2020, at 00:04, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2020/03/09 22:50, David Gwynne wrote:
>> this works better on his epyc 2 box, and works right on my epyc 1, esxi
>> on epyc 1, and on an apu1.
>
> Fine on apu2 (GX-412TC) and the old HP microserver (Turion N40L) also.
> Diff makes sen
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 06:25:10PM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> So I did some last minute testing of my own and apparently I misread.
> A varbindlist means a new sequence of varbinds, while the code assumes
> a list of varbinds.
>
> Code below actually works and also gives the additional varb
Hi,
In order to unlock flock(2), make writes to the f_iflags field of struct
file atomic; similar to recent changes to both struct file and process.
This also gets rid of the last kernel lock protected field in the scope
of struct file.
Comments? OK?
Index: kern/kern_descrip.c
===
So I did some last minute testing of my own and apparently I misread.
A varbindlist means a new sequence of varbinds, while the code assumes
a list of varbinds.
Code below actually works and also gives the additional varbinds to
the trap handle "command".
Now actually asking for OKs. :-)
martijn
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 01:13:46PM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> On 3/10/20 10:21 AM, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:27:20AM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> >> Looking at RFC1157 section 4.1.6, an snmpv1 trap should also contain a
> >> varbindlist.
> >>
> >> Could you test
On 3/10/20 10:21 AM, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:27:20AM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
>> Looking at RFC1157 section 4.1.6, an snmpv1 trap should also contain a
>> varbindlist.
>>
>> Could you test the diff below?
>
> Is also OK for me and the current call path seems to be cl
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 03:04:00AM +0530, Neeraj Pal wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am reading and learning the internals of malloc(3).
> So, after compiling the debug version of libc and using it for one
> basic sample code for malloc(3).
>
> Not able to understand some parts of the following code sn
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:27:20AM +0100, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Looking at RFC1157 section 4.1.6, an snmpv1 trap should also contain a
> varbindlist.
>
> Could you test the diff below?
Is also OK for me and the current call path seems to be clean.
But, shouldn't we set iter to NULL anyway?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 01:10:58AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Claudio suggested[0] to restrict the visibility of three helper
> functions in this file. The diff below goes a bit further, sprinkling
> some static and const magic to help the compiler generate better code.
>
> ok?
