On 22 Nov, 2014, at 00:03 , Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Dennis Ferguson
dennis.c.fergu...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I overlooked the obvious new elm's next - prev elm's next ordering.
The conclusion is that while the current TAILQ_REMOVE() macro
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Dennis Ferguson
dennis.c.fergu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll guess one problem is in sparc/mutex.h, here:
#define MUTEX_RECEIVE(mtx) /* nothing */
#define MUTEX_GIVE(mtx) /* nothing */
I think that these macros should be
Hi
I ran into this strange bug with glusterfs NFS server, which is possible
because it allows the mounted filesystem root vnode to be VLNK (NetBSD's
native mountd prevents this situation and therefore the bug does not
happen with our native NFS server):
bacasel# mount
On 23 Nov 2014, at 17:47, Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
Hi
I ran into this strange bug with glusterfs NFS server, which is possible
because it allows the mounted filesystem root vnode to be VLNK (NetBSD's
native mountd prevents this situation and therefore the bug does not
happen
Hi,
According the OpenGroup online document for posix_madvise[1], it
should fail with ENOMEM for invalid addresses ranges :
[ENOMEM]
Addresses in the range starting at addr and continuing for len
bytes are partly or completely outside the range allowed for the
address space of the
J. Hannken-Illjes hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de wrote:
Did you try -- last time I tried a forced unmount with NFS server down
it didn't work even with root being a directory because the namei() call
would hang in VOP_LOOKUP(). Does it work these days?
It works on netbsd-7:
bacasel# mountd
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Nicolas Joly nj...@pasteur.fr wrote:
Hi,
According the OpenGroup online document for posix_madvise[1], it
should fail with ENOMEM for invalid addresses ranges :
[ENOMEM]
Addresses in the range starting at addr and continuing for len
bytes are
http://marc.info/?t=14167055271r=1w=2
Following the ideas raised in that thread:
- Allocate callout_t dynamically. struct ifnet only has a pointer to struct
callout, which will not be read by netstat(1) anyway.
- Prefer the name slowtimo to watchdog, because those callbacks do a
little
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:23:28 +0900
From: Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com
http://marc.info/?t=14167055271r=1w=2
Following the ideas raised in that thread:
- Allocate callout_t dynamically. struct ifnet only has a pointer to struct
callout, which will not be read by
J. Hannken-Illjes hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de wrote:
1) remove FOLLOW flag in sys_unmount(). After all, unless the -R flag is
given, umount(8) should have resolved the patch before calling
unmount(2).
Did you try -- last time I tried a forced unmount with NFS server down
it didn't work even
(I'm trying, but I can't follow up all mails soon, because I need more
than x2 energy time to write English than you.)
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Taylor R Campbell
campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net wrote:
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:23:28 +0900
From: Masao Uebayashi
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Masao Uebayashi uebay...@gmail.com wrote:
netstat(1) needs to know struct type information (by building if.c) to
s/ (by building if.c) / (by including if.h) /
12 matches
Mail list logo
