On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:25:03AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:12:17AM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 06:57:44 +0800 (PHT)
From: Paul Goyette p...@vps1.whooppee.com
[...]
But I'm not sure
) (or
whatever that API is called) magic where every time the arch-specific
code has to enumerate the device tree to find the matching device and
get information.
It's a rather difficult problem though.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
peacefully.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
pgpQX22r_Z7Ki.pgp
Description: PGP signature
be, but from your initial post it was
more about the receiving end of COMPAT_FREEBSD.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007
, an assembly language routine, in which I do not
see how we can get EINVAL returned.
The backtrace is:
kcopy
uiomove
ubc_uiomove
kcopy faults and EINVAL come from uvm_fault? You'll have to look
there.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one
the reasonable uses in my very humble opinion.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
pgpY_Co2qt0dX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
, I wouldn't
mind the slightest.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
pgpjc5dmAjpt3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
of a recursive mutex to allow the thread initially
taking the mutex to take it again, but not other threads? The code
would have to be a lot more complicated than that.
All I see here is a fancy no-op, but maybe it's just me.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:05:20PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
+int
+rmutex_tryenter(rmutex_t *rmtx)
+{
+ int rv = 1;
+
+ if (mutex_owned(rmtx-rmtx_mtx)) {
+ rmtx-rmtx_recurse++;
+ KASSERT(rmtx-rmtx_recurse != 0
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 09:23:04AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:56:23AM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
For free is a subjective thing. I don't think using device_register()
--which is a MD callback--to pass information between two MI drivers is
free.
Well
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:25:10AM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 09:22:53PM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
bridges (mostly on x86). An even older idea of mine is to finally see
legacy devices listed in the ACPI tables attached to the PCI-ISA bridge
where
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 06:27:55PM -0500, David Young wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 09:22:53PM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for comments about what I call device flavours. The best
example of the kind of situation it tries to be an answer for is the
multiplicity
autoconf(9) are concerned, it raises other issues, like how to
deal with device_t's. One thing I'd like to get input on anyway is how
to actually deal with pmf(9). I haven't looked at it at all yet, but I
don't really expect miracles for my current patch.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c
controller driver. With the flavours, pcib(4) doesn't have to do
anything but attach the isa(4) bus.
Does that clear things a little?
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm
is the swwdog pseudo-device. Other watchdog
drivers can prevent a suspend if their timer is armed, but since
swwdog is only a pseudo-device it cannot register a pmf handler.
Convert it to a defpseudodev then.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face from
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:35:31PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
(Resent, this time with attachment!)
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:14:57AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
without giving
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:31:42PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
Include ioconf.h I think.
Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
swwdog is included in rump, and there doesn't seem to be an ioconf.h
available
fd, EPIPE for the second,
EFBIG for the third, EINTR for the fourth and an undefined return status
for the 4996 that follow? (I guess on a socket you might only get EIO,
ENOSPC and EINTR, but you get the idea.)
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face from
struct fdvec and two struct iovec, you'd end up
with 1 struct iovec2.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic
to dismiss any opinion that includes a change
in config(1), but you might also want to think about how changing
config(1) could help you. If some people are going to change it anyway,
why wouldn't you consider the benefits of adding changes that serve your
agenda?
--
Quentin Garnier - c
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:14:09PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Quentin Garnier wrote:
[...]
My answer only intended to show that the device enumeration isn't
random, depending on if you add/remove other devices, which is what
Masao was claiming.
Your answer only says that device
source file to build, under
what conditions as well as information about drivers and relationships
between devices. Why would you do away with it entirely? All that
information will have to be stored somewhere anyway.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face
that e.g. cpu3 that attaches to acpi0 is the same
cpu3 that has attached to mainbus0. So:
Well, the answer to that is simple: there should only be one device.
Anything design that doesn't produce that result can go to thrown out
the window without further delay.
--
Quentin Garnier - c
, but fortunately I don't think it is a goal for anybody in the
NetBSD community to be useful only to grumpy old farts.
[...]
(Do I need to say that I agree with Quentin?)
Are you still positive about that? I am certainly not advocating the
status quo.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 10:31:52PM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:50:03PM +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 06:43:49PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
[...]
- Intuitivity
Behavior should be simple enough for users to guess without looking
of a static
limit over the number of cgd(4) devices.
--
Quentin Garnier - c...@cubidou.net - c...@netbsd.org
See the look on my face from staying too long in one place
[...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling
KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007
26 matches
Mail list logo
