On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:58:59PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
I also wonder whether we should also have a note that disabled SIGPIPE.
similar to what paxctl does.
You mean a system-wide flag? That would worry me; I think it would have
bad effects, since anything that did
a |
I wrote:
So, are there any recommendations for current Opteron motherboards with good
NetBSD support?
Since I didn't receive any specific suggestions, may I ask whether anyone is
running
NetBSD on either a Supermicro H8SCM-F or a Tyan S8010?
On Jan 24, 3:20am, y...@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
| please don't forget compat_netbsd32 copy.
I don't see anything to do there? What should I do?
Thanks,
christos
Does NetBSD run on any processor architectures where it is difficult
or impossible in the kernel[1] to provide non-interlocked atomic
operations? That is, operations that are atomic with respect to other
operations *on the same processor*, but possibly divisible by operations
on other processors?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| [stuff]
|
| One thing jumps out at me: if it's a file-level flag, shouldn't it be
| sufficient to use F_GETFL / F_SETFL to manipulate it, rather than
On Jan 24, 5:19pm, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Adding an option to avoid SIGPIPE for all file descriptors
| On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| | On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| | [stuff]
Hello there,
I am currently working on a NetBSD port for the FriendlyARM MINI2440,
and have run into a situation where the arguments to user space
programs is garbled.
I've noticed it for the init-process and for the getty process.
Booting with rc_configured=NO in /etc/rc.conf, mounting procfs,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:16:00AM -0600, David Young wrote:
Does NetBSD run on any processor architectures where it is difficult
or impossible in the kernel[1] to provide non-interlocked atomic
operations? That is, operations that are atomic with respect to other
operations *on the same
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Paul Fleischer wrote:
Is the usage of STACKALIGN indeed incorrect in this situation, or am I
missing the big picture?
I stumbled across this when revamping execve1 for posix_spawn recently.
The intention seems to be to align the stack on a 8 byte
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:16:49PM -0800, Stephen M. Rumble wrote:
The ARM EABI requires 8-byte stack alignment at function entry. I don't know
if we're using the EABI, but this bug and its fix might indicate as much.
I don't think we do yet, but we should ;-)
Anyway, let's make a up-rounding
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:01:49 +0100
Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Paul Fleischer wrote:
Is the usage of STACKALIGN indeed incorrect in this situation, or am I
missing the big picture?
I stumbled across this when revamping execve1 for
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:30:37PM -0500, Matthew Mondor wrote:
Would this be considered wasteful? Of course, x86-64 MD code could
also be used...
I would prefer the x86 MD code, using the same technique as the (fixed)
arm code.
Maybe it could even depend on actual CPU type (i.e. SSE2
In article cab0bowc+lnnhojsszfzgixcl73udthod2fqzp-gby+mpuuz...@mail.gmail.com,
Paul Fleischer p...@xpg.dk wrote:
Hello there,
I am currently working on a NetBSD port for the FriendlyARM MINI2440,
and have run into a situation where the arguments to user space
programs is garbled.
I've noticed it
On 2012-01-24, at 12:01 PM, Martin Husemann wrote:
Can anyone explain why arm would need 8 byte alignment?
The ARM EABI requires 8-byte stack alignment at function entry. I don't know if
we're using the EABI, but this bug and its fix might indicate as much.
Steve
14 matches
Mail list logo
