Le 28/03/2015 03:23, matthew green a écrit :
> Maxime Villard writes:
>> Le 22/03/2015 19:27, Jean-Yves Migeon a écrit :
>>> Le 20/03/2015 17:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
In fact, I have a better solution.
What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
Maxime Villard writes:
> Le 22/03/2015 19:27, Jean-Yves Migeon a écrit :
> > Le 20/03/2015 17:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
> >> In fact, I have a better solution.
> >>
> >> What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
> >> the Linux/FreeBSD modules are available by def
Le 22/03/2015 19:27, Jean-Yves Migeon a écrit :
> Le 20/03/2015 17:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
>> In fact, I have a better solution.
>>
>> What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
>> the Linux/FreeBSD modules are available by default, but not enabled.
>
> What do
In article <550f097c.8070...@free.fr>,
Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
>Le 20/03/2015 17:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
>> In fact, I have a better solution.
>>
>> What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
>> the Linux/FreeBSD modules are available by default, but not enable
Le 20/03/2015 17:44, Maxime Villard a écrit :
In fact, I have a better solution.
What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
the Linux/FreeBSD modules are available by default, but not enabled.
What do you mean by "enabled"?
- Enabling explicit module use by root?
In fact, I have a better solution.
What about adding a .enabled={0;1} sysctl to each compat module? This way
the Linux/FreeBSD modules are available by default, but not enabled.
Le 16/02/2015 02:50, David Holland a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:13:07AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> > > The funny thing is that a simple, *valid* call to sched_getparam()
> > > crashes the system. Clearly, it means that in 6 years, nobody
> > > tested it. As I stated, we sho
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:13:07AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> > > The funny thing is that a simple, *valid* call to sched_getparam()
> > > crashes the system. Clearly, it means that in 6 years, nobody
> > > tested it. As I stated, we should normally have received a bug
> > > report fr
On 15 February 2015 at 19:34, David Holland wrote:
> sched_getparam() is hardly a main-line function. I could easily
> imagine running compat binaries for years and never happening to use
> one that calls it. So I think your reasoning is suspect.
Thats the zero test coverage issue. For Linux emul
Le 15/02/2015 20:34, David Holland a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 04:31:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> The funny thing is that a simple, *valid* call to sched_getparam()
> crashes the system. Clearly, it means that in 6 years, nobody
> tested it. As I stated, we should normally have
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 07:34:54PM +, David Holland wrote:
> By this same reasoning we should not have any binary compat code at
> all. The only thing you've cited that's different about the freebsd
> compat code is that it's out of date -- the proper response to that is
> to update it. It'
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 04:31:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > > > Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
> > > > preponderance of opinion. So far you've said that you want to
> > > > remove/disable this, and a number of people have said they use it. No
Am 15.02.15 um 16:31 schrieb Maxime Villard:
> Le 14/02/2015 08:40, David Holland a écrit :
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:05:00PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> > > Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
>> > > preponderance of opinion. So far you've said that y
Le 14/02/2015 08:40, David Holland a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:05:00PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > > Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
> > > preponderance of opinion. So far you've said that you want to
> > > remove/disable this, and a number
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:05:00PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
> > preponderance of opinion. So far you've said that you want to
> > remove/disable this, and a number of people have said they use it. No
> > one else ha
On February 13, 2015 9:36:13 PM EST, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. The point I was trying to make is that if you break
>COMPAT_FREEBSD by taking it out of the GENERIC kernel, you lose the
>ability to manage the
>twa(4) or twe(4) cards through the OS unless you recompile a kernel
>with
>COMPA
In article <201502132346.t1dnkqgd005...@lothlorien.nfbcal.org>,
Brian Buhrow wrote:
> If you are going to disable COMPAT_FREEBSD in GENERIC kernels, then
>you probably also need to disable twe(4) and twa(4) as well. I would not
>be in favor of this. Several people have written saying they
ee as
unfortunate.
-Brian
On Feb 13, 9:25pm, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
} Subject: Re: Removal of compat-FreeBSD
} On February 13, 2015 6:46:52 PM EST, Brian Buhrow wrote:
} > If you are going to disable COMPAT_FREEBSD in GENERIC kernels, then
} >you probably also need to disable twe(4) an
On February 13, 2015 6:46:52 PM EST, Brian Buhrow wrote:
> If you are going to disable COMPAT_FREEBSD in GENERIC kernels, then
>you probably also need to disable twe(4) and twa(4) as well. I would
>not
>be in favor of this. Several people have written saying they use
>tw_cli.
>I've not wri
> On Feb 13, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> In article <20150213192419.gb5...@britannica.bec.de>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>
>> I have asked the same question a long time ago when we pruned a bunch of
>> other obsolete emulations. From a security stand point, I fully agree
>
etBSD.
I think a better fix would be to update the man pages so they document how
fragile the FreeBSD compatibility code is.
-thanks
-Brian
On Feb 13, 12:35pm, Maxime Villard wrote:
} Subject: Re: Removal of compat-FreeBSD
} Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
}
} Therefore I th
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Maxime Villard writes:
>
> > Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
> >
> > Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
> > unless anyone disagrees.
>
> Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
> pre
In article <20150213192419.gb5...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> Maxime Villard writes:
>>
>> > Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
>> >
>> > Therefore I think I will just disable it by default
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 08:01:55PM +, Michael van Elst wrote:
> jo...@britannica.bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
>
> >... As such I find disabling COMPAT_FREEBSD by default a very good
> >idea for increasing the visibility of the problem.
>
> Disabling it by default makes it invisible and
jo...@britannica.bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
>... As such I find disabling COMPAT_FREEBSD by default a very good
>idea for increasing the visibility of the problem.
Disabling it by default makes it invisible and forces it to bitrot.
And I tend to believe that that's the intention behind t
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:24:19 +0100
From: Joerg Sonnenberger
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
> preponderance of opinion. So far you've said that you want to
> remove/disable t
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:26:48AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Maxime Villard writes:
>
> > Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
> >
> > Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
> > unless anyone disagrees.
>
> Our norms for significant chan
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:05:00PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Le 13/02/2015 15:26, Greg Troxel a écrit :
> >
> > Maxime Villard writes:
> >
> >> Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
> >>
> >> Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
> >> un
Am 13.02.15 um 12:35 schrieb Maxime Villard:
> Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
>
> Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
> unless anyone disagrees.
I disagree. People still use it.
Le 13/02/2015 15:26, Greg Troxel a écrit :
>
> Maxime Villard writes:
>
>> Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
>>
>> Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
>> unless anyone disagrees.
>
> Our norms for significant changes are more or less a
Maxime Villard writes:
> Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
>
> Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
> unless anyone disagrees.
Our norms for significant changes are more or less about consensus or
preponderance of opinion. So far you'v
Apparently, compat-FreeBSD is needed by tw_cli users.
Therefore I think I will just disable it by default in the GENERIC kernels,
unless anyone disagrees.
Le 07/02/2015 12:19, Maxime Villard a écrit :
> Hi,
> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>
> It has a limited i
Le 13/02/2015 13:33, Marc Balmer a écrit :
>
>
> Am 13.02.15 um 12:34 schrieb Maxime Villard:
>> Le 09/02/2015 10:12, Marc Balmer a écrit :
I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
[...]
This is what motivates my proposal.
Ok?
>>>
>>> Generally it wo
Am 13.02.15 um 12:34 schrieb Maxime Villard:
> Le 09/02/2015 10:12, Marc Balmer a écrit :
>>> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>>> [...]
>>> This is what motivates my proposal.
>>>
>>> Ok?
>>
>> Generally it would be a good idea, but there are obviously some tw_cli
>
Le 09/02/2015 10:12, Marc Balmer a écrit :
>> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>> [...]
>> This is what motivates my proposal.
>>
>> Ok?
>
> Generally it would be a good idea, but there are obviously some tw_cli
> users. So they need a working alternative first, imo.
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:19:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
Others said it, and so do I: I use compat_freebsd for tw_cli. IIRC
it the Linux flavor did not work easily.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
> [...]
> This is what motivates my proposal.
>
> Ok?
Generally it would be a good idea, but there are obviously some tw_cli
users. So they need a working alternative first, imo. Maybe 3Ware
would help, if being asked?
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 03:44:43PM +, Justin Cormack wrote:
> On 7 February 2015 at 11:33, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Maxime Villard wrote:
> >>
> >> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
> >
> >
> > Can tw_cli be run in any other way to manage 3war
On 7 February 2015 at 11:33, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Maxime Villard wrote:
>>
>> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>
>
> Can tw_cli be run in any other way to manage 3ware RAID cards?
Does the Linux binary for tw_cli work? Or are there driver diff
Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>
Please don't do it.
Le 07/02/2015 12:51, Manuel Bouyer a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:19:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
>
> please don't, I'm using it.
>
>>
>> It has a limited interest since no major proprietary software is develope
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:58:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > I use a freebsd binary daily, on a netbsd-6 host.
> >
>
> I guess it's an old binary then?
/usr/local/sbin/tw_cli: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), statically linked, for FreeBSD 5.4, stripped
--
M
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 12:19:36PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
please don't, I'm using it.
>
> It has a limited interest since no major proprietary software is developed on
> FreeBSD; if one were, it would certainly be avail
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Maxime Villard wrote:
I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
Can tw_cli be run in any other way to manage 3ware RAID cards?
--
Stephen
Hi,
I intend to remove the compat-FreeBSD support from the system.
It has a limited interest since no major proprietary software is developed on
FreeBSD; if one were, it would certainly be available on Linux, and we have full
compatibility support for that.
You will also notice, after reading the
45 matches
Mail list logo
