On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:26:20AM +, David Holland wrote:
After a fashion. Check how our LOCKDEBUG works. :-/
You mean crawls?
Martin
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:22:14AM +0100, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
You mean that you have a solution for:
struct mystruct {
#ifdef DEBUG_MYSTRUCT
int line;
char*file;
char*func;
void*another_pointer;
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:42:29AM +0100, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
coming from the same build and with the same set of critical options.
Otherwise, if the struct mutex changes its size due to #define
LOCK_DEBUGGING
in the kernel, you'll going to get a page fault from the module's code with
Julio Merino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Johnny Billquist b...@softjar.se wrote:
Julio Merino wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let me clarify:
- NetBSD is used for many purposes.
- The official binary should choose the sane
could you please use subject lines that somewhat reflect the content
of the discussion please? I was surprised to find a discussion like
this under that subject, or maybe you want to sneak it through? :)
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:39:07AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Julio Merino wrote:
(...)
Darran Hunt wrote:
Hi all,
I've committed the Function Boundary Trace provider to NetBSD current.
This DTrace provider automatically instruments every function in the
kernel with an entry and exit probe. The probes have true zero-probe
effect (i.e. they don't affect the system when
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Martin S. Weber wrote:
Well, if you tell them, run this script and reboot to configure your
system for your needs, then most users would sign that. And that's
all our (cross-)building is. Run a script. Now if the source is not
properly maintained because someone keeps
2010/3/16 Julio Merino j...@netbsd.org:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me clarify:
- NetBSD is used for many purposes.
- The official binary should choose the sane default
- FFS_EI enabled by default
- XIP would be disabled by default
-
Let's instead ask us who, and why, some people do drift over to
NetBSD? I would say that a large portion of those are people who
for some reason or other have gotten tired of the magical modules,
autoconfiguration, and magic tools that manage the system for you,
and who wants to have better
On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:41 PM, David Young wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:58:30PM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:31 PM, David Young wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:20:41PM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Mar 11, 2010, at 11:40 AM, David Young wrote:
Resource
At Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:42 +, Andrew Doran a...@netbsd.org wrote:
Subject: Re: config(5) break down
Correctamundo. 95% of downloads in the week following the release of 5.0
were for x86. It doesn't say much about embedded but does tell us that
a very large segment of the user
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 03:18:10PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
Please do not even think about using downloads as a measure of which
ports are used and how much they are used!
That's a completely invalid measurement of how NetBSD might be used.
No kidding. We'll ship thousands of units of
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
While here, can anyone enlighten us how one boots NetBSD so that it looks
for modules in non-default directory?
You can't, and the people who want NetBSD to move to modular kernels
don't seem to care. Until this problem is fixed, I will try to avoid
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:50:29PM +0100, Zafer Aydo?an wrote:
I'm wholeheartedly behind Julio's statement.
Users should never have to rebuild anything.
Er, why?
Users should never have to perform complex unautomated procedures,
because such procedures can easily be screwed up and recovery
Dear participants in this thread,
If you feel the need to share your general opinions about NetBSD or the
direction of development, please continue this on the netbsd-us...@netbsd.org
mailing list.
Please respect the users which have subscribed to the tech- mailing lists to
participate in
Alan Barrett a...@cequrux.com writes:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
While here, can anyone enlighten us how one boots NetBSD so that it looks
for modules in non-default directory?
You can't, and the people who want NetBSD to move to modular kernels
don't seem to care. Until
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Well... Could we arrange it so that we have safe monolithic GENERIC
until issues are resolved somehow?
For i386, use MONOLITHIC instad of GENERIC
For amd64, the default is still MONOLITHIC, if I remember correctly.
Paul Goyette p...@whooppee.com writes:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
Well... Could we arrange it so that we have safe monolithic GENERIC
until issues are resolved somehow?
For i386, use MONOLITHIC instad of GENERIC
For amd64, the default is still MONOLITHIC, if I remember
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 20:51:23 Alan Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
[how to boot] NetBSD so that it looks for modules in non-default
directory?
You can't [...]
Is this problem specific to NetBSD? Do other operating systems provide
solutions?
Best, Mark
Mark Weinem mark.wei...@alumni.uni-due.de writes:
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 20:51:23 Alan Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
[how to boot] NetBSD so that it looks for modules in non-default
directory?
You can't [...]
Is this problem specific to NetBSD? Do other
20 matches
Mail list logo
