J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> As any program relying on a special order is not portable I would suggest to
> either remove this test or change it as appended testing overlap only.
I've changed the test to find all locks regardless of an internal
ordering of locks in the kernel. The test passes now.
On 22.07.2011 21:30, Peter Tworek wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Some time ago I've noticed that my current kernel prints this message
> when booting. As far as I understand no_sa_support syscall is only
> required for NetBSD 4.0 binary compatibility, which I've disabled. I've
> made a small patch which take
> I have a hardware configuration with a cmos camera sensor on an i2c
> bus (for configuring the camera) and connected to an (ipu) image
> processing controller that acts as a hub for all things video. I
> envisioned (naturally I think) a camera driver inheriting from two
> parents 1) i2c bus driv
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Frank Zerangue wrote:
> I have a hardware configuration with a cmos camera sensor on an i2c bus (for
> configuring the camera) and connected to an (ipu) image processing controller
> that acts as a hub for all things video. I envisioned (naturally I think) a
> camera driver
I have a hardware configuration with a cmos camera sensor on an i2c bus (for
configuring the camera) and connected to an (ipu) image processing controller
that acts as a hub for all things video. I envisioned (naturally I think) a
camera driver inheriting from two parents 1) i2c bus driver and 2
Hello,
thanks. That's pity- I think I saw xorg.conf under Linux with both
options for Intel or Nvidia driver plus udl (they use framebuffer I
believe). Let me test it (two three weeks).
KR.
Piotr.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Michael wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:41:15 +
Hello,
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:41:15 +
"Jonathan A. Kollasch" wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:04:42PM +0200, Piotr Adamus wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > could I obtain information if udl driver support X11 for Displaylink
> > devices 1x0/1x5? I am planning to by perhaps UGA-2K-A and I wou
Hi,
Some time ago I've noticed that my current kernel prints this message
when booting. As far as I understand no_sa_support syscall is only
required for NetBSD 4.0 binary compatibility, which I've disabled. I've
made a small patch which takes care of this message by putting
sysctl_createv call in
Hello all,
I filed this report a while back. Someone else has tested my fix on non-PPC
systems (x86, x86_64) and reported that it seems to work as well. I'm
attaching the patch against -current here; could someone give it a look and
include it if it seems to be OK? Or provide feedback if it
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:08:34PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> That sure doesn't look Dutch, but I can't figure out what it
> is instead. It has a (UK) pound-sterling symbol on the 7 key,
> a (German) eszett on the S key, and french quotes on the Z/X keys.
I believe it is Dutch for two reasons.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:08:34PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 1:05 PM, wrote:
>[...]
> > Here is a screenshot of the keyboard I took :
> > http://gilbert.fernandes.pagesperso-orange.fr/thinkpad_x30_dutch.jpg
>
> That sure doesn't look Dutch, but I can't figure out what it
On Jul 22, 2011, at 1:05 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:59:37AM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
>
>> That must be very rare! Nobody in their right mind uses a Dutch
>> keyboard. And I say that as a Dutch person.
>
> They are. I know the Dutch have moved to using the US international
> keyboard
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Frank Zerangue wrote:
> The examples you site seem to indicate that for example the le device may
> attach to many
> alternative devices (e.g. pci, tc, …), but only one attachment is made when
> autoconf is complete. I may have
> read the code examples incorrectly -- please
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:59:37AM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> That must be very rare! Nobody in their right mind uses a Dutch
> keyboard. And I say that as a Dutch person.
They are. I know the Dutch have moved to using the US international
keyboard and are no longer using this one. But that was the
jakllsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:04:42PM +0200, Piotr Adamus wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > could I obtain information if udl driver support X11 for Displaylink
> > devices 1x0/1x5? I am planning to by perhaps UGA-2K-A and I would like
> > to be sure if it works under X11.
>
> Should
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:04:42PM +0200, Piotr Adamus wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> could I obtain information if udl driver support X11 for Displaylink
> devices 1x0/1x5? I am planning to by perhaps UGA-2K-A and I would like
> to be sure if it works under X11.
Should work via xf86-video-wsfb.
J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> As any program relying on a special order is not portable I would suggest to
> either remove this test or change it as appended testing overlap only.
>
> If noone objects I will commit this change during the weekend.
I would wait until we get a clarification from
austin
Hello all,
could I obtain information if udl driver support X11 for Displaylink
devices 1x0/1x5? I am planning to by perhaps UGA-2K-A and I would like
to be sure if it works under X11.
Thank you very much.
With kind regards.
Piotr.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
>> The test fcntl_getlock_pids() from fs/vfs/t_vnops.c assumes
>> fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &lock) returns the blocking lock with the
>> lowest start offset.
>>
>> Our documentation and POSIX.1 document it returning the
>>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> > The test fcntl_getlock_pids() from fs/vfs/t_vnops.c assumes
> > fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &lock) returns the blocking lock with the
> > lowest start offset.
> >
> > Our documentation and POSIX.1 document it
J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
> The test fcntl_getlock_pids() from fs/vfs/t_vnops.c assumes
> fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &lock) returns the blocking lock with the
> lowest start offset.
>
> Our documentation and POSIX.1 document it returning the
> "first lock that blocks" but doesn't call for any specific orde
The test fcntl_getlock_pids() from fs/vfs/t_vnops.c assumes
fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &lock) returns the blocking lock with the
lowest start offset.
Our documentation and POSIX.1 document it returning the
"first lock that blocks" but doesn't call for any specific order.
Should I fix fcntl() to return th
On Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 06:26:56 +0200, gilbert.fernan...@orange.fr wrote:
> Broke my Thinkpad X30 keyboard while being in Germany.
> Found in a shop a brand new keyboard, told it was
> German. Turns out it's not German, it's Dutch.
That must be very rare! Nobody in their right mind uses a Dutch
key
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:42:59PM -0500, David Young wrote:
>
> I think you mean to ask if one device instance can have more than one
> parent, e.g.,
>
> le0 at pci0
> le0 at pci1
>
> or
>
> le0 at pci0
> le0 at isapnp0
>
> I am pretty sure that is not possible
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 04:24:11PM -0500, Frank Zerangue wrote:
> The examples you site seem to indicate that for example the le device may
> attach to many
> alternative devices (e.g. pci, tc, …), but only one attachment is made when
> autoconf is complete. I may have
> read the code examples i
25 matches
Mail list logo
