On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 01:29:42 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article ,
> Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >On 25.12.2017 17:43, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> On Dec 25, 4:42pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil
On 2017/12/25 20:26, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 03:42:06PM +0900, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
Is this intended behavior? Is it possible to use xcall while
cold==1?
Cold is (as you noted) not the right condition (but pretty close).
Xcalls don't really make any sense before
In article ,
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 25.12.2017 17:43, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 4:42pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
>> -- Subject: Re: Proposal to obsolete SYS_pipe
>>
>> | I've
In article ,
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 25.12.2017 16:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> On 24.12.2017 22:25, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> I propose to deprecate SYS_pipe.
>>>
>>> It is a special syscall that
On 25.12.2017 17:18, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 16:37:43 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
>> On 24.12.2017 22:25, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>>> http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00039-obsolete-SYS_pipe.txt
>>
>> I've extracted two patches from the above proposal.
>>
>> In these
On 25.12.2017 17:43, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Dec 25, 4:42pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: Proposal to obsolete SYS_pipe
>
> | I've extracted two changes from the original mail:
> |
> | https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2017/12/25/msg022836.html
>
> Yes,
On 25.12.2017 16:37, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 24.12.2017 22:25, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> I propose to deprecate SYS_pipe.
>>
>> It is a special syscall that returns two integers from one function
>> call. Fanciness is not compatible with regular C syntax and it demands
>> per-cpu assembly
On Dec 25, 4:42pm, n...@gmx.com (Kamil Rytarowski) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Proposal to obsolete SYS_pipe
| I've extracted two changes from the original mail:
|
| https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2017/12/25/msg022836.html
Yes, the first patch is exactly what I had in mind; remove the
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 16:37:43 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 24.12.2017 22:25, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00039-obsolete-SYS_pipe.txt
>
> I've extracted two patches from the above proposal.
>
> In these patches SYS_pipe is not marked COMPAT_80 and not
On 24.12.2017 22:25, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> I propose to deprecate SYS_pipe.
>
> It is a special syscall that returns two integers from one function
> call. Fanciness is not compatible with regular C syntax and it demands
> per-cpu assembly wrappers and rump-kernel workarounds. It's not easily
In article ,
Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 25.12.2017 03:42, John Nemeth wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 9:37pm, Mouse wrote:
>> }
>> } > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00039-obsolete-SYS_pipe.txt
>> }
>> } I see no
On Dec 25, 4:54pm, k-nakah...@iij.ad.jp (Kengo NAKAHARA) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: RFC: ipsec(4) pseudo interface
| Here is the updated patch series and unified patch.
| - https://www.netbsd.org/~knakahara/if_ipsec/if_ipsec4.tgz
| -
On Dec 24, 2017 11:10 PM, "Robert Elz" wrote:
Date:Sun, 24 Dec 2017 18:42:19 -0800
From:John Nemeth
Message-ID: <201712250242.vbp2gjjm017...@server.cornerstoneservice.ca>
| HISTORY
| A pipe() function call appeared in
On 25.12.2017 03:42, John Nemeth wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:37pm, Mouse wrote:
> }
> } > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00039-obsolete-SYS_pipe.txt
> }
> } I see no pipe2(2), nor change from pipe(2) to pipe(3) (with an xref to
> } pipe2(2)), both of which, it seems to me, should be part of this.
>
>
14 matches
Mail list logo