Emile `iMil' Heitor wrote:
> Is there any news on this front?
The initial multiboot2 effort for amd64 has not yet been completed.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
sim...@netbsd.org (Simon Burge) writes:
>=?UTF-8?B?SmFyb23DrXIgRG9sZcSNZWs=?= wrote:
>> IIRC SMB1 is even not supported any more in current version of
>> windows, so the utility of smbfs is close to 0.
>I _think_ Windows 10 still supports SMB v1, however at work we
>disable it by group policy
On 20.01.2020 17:42, Emile `iMil' Heitor wrote:
>
> Hi Kamil, Emmanuel & all,
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
>> On 24.09.2019 14:26, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:31:51PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
My use-case is "qemu-system-x86_64 -kernel
=?UTF-8?B?SmFyb23DrXIgRG9sZcSNZWs=?= wrote:
> IIRC SMB1 is even not supported any more in current version of
> windows, so the utility of smbfs is close to 0.
I _think_ Windows 10 still supports SMB v1, however at work we
disable it by group policy becuase of security risks.
Cheers,
Simon.
Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 21:07, Jason Thorpe a écrit :
>
> (Cross-posted to tech-kern / tech-net because it affects networking and file
> systems.)
>
> I would like to propose that we remove netsmb and smbfs. Two reasons:
Yes, please.
> 1- They only support SMB1, which is an ancient flavor of
(Cross-posted to tech-kern / tech-net because it affects networking and file
systems.)
I would like to propose that we remove netsmb and smbfs. Two reasons:
1- They only support SMB1, which is an ancient flavor of the protocol. SMB2
was introduced in 2006 and SMB3 in 2012. SMB3 is the
Hi Kamil, Emmanuel & all,
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 24.09.2019 14:26, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 01:31:51PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
My use-case is "qemu-system-x86_64 -kernel ./netbsd". Last I tried (with
multiboot2 patches merged) it still
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 02:18:15PM +0900, Takashi YAMAMOTO wrote:
> > http://www.netbsd.org/~ad/2020/rwlock.diff
>
>
> i guess in rw_downgrade
> newown = (owner & RW_NODEBUG) | RW_SPIN;
>
> should be
> newown = (owner & (RW_NODEBUG | RW_SPIN));
>
> as the owner might have failed
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 10:08:12PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:50:24 +
> > From: Andrew Doran
> >
> > The biggest single remaining concurency problem is the mutex on libc.so's
> > uvm_object / vnode. It pops up in a number of places, but most clearly seen
On 20.01.2020 04:53, Chen,Xizi wrote:
> Hi NetBSD Community,
>
Welcome@
> I am currently a first year Master's Degree student studying Computer
> Science at Northwest Missouri State University. I'm a professional C/C++
> developer with about 4 years of work experience as a storage systems
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
