All,
as I wrote last week:
Submissions are due on April 15. Thanks a lot, and we are hoping for a
big turn-out.
As always this is not final, but please get your reports ready by monday and
maybe let us know that you are planing to submit. Unfortunately we have a
dramatically lower turn-out
Hi,
DELAY() in FreeBSD uses a busy loop . I am looking for something like
sleep_on_timeout() call in Linux . (dont' want to waste the CPU cycles
by DELAY'ing)
As I am pretty new to programming with Free BSD , can you help me
with some details about equivalent implementation(wait queues etc)
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:46, Dipjyoti Saikia wrote:
DELAY() in FreeBSD uses a busy loop . I am looking for something like
sleep_on_timeout() call in Linux . (dont' want to waste the CPU cycles
by DELAY'ing)
tsleep/msleep/timeout are probably what you want.
--
Daniel O'Connor software and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DELAY() in FreeBSD uses a busy loop . I am looking for something
like sleep_on_timeout() call in Linux . (dont' want to waste the CPU
cycles by DELAY'ing)
You may want to check out timeout(9) / untimeout(9), see man 9 timeout
for details.
As I am pretty new to
sleep_on_timeout() call in Linux . (dont' want to waste the CPU cycles
You may want to try the manual pages.
% man -k sleep | fgrep '(9)'
endtsleep(9), sleepinit(9), unsleep(9) - manage the queues of sleeping processes
init_sleepqueues(9) ...
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:08:21AM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
I'll spare a lengthy write-up because I think the patch documents it well
enough. It certainly appears to fix things here when doing very large
block-sized writes, but it also reduces the throughput with those block
On or about Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:01 , while attempting a
Zarathustra emulation [EMAIL PROTECTED] thus spake:
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:58:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: H. S. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: imminent disk failure ?
...
I have a server running 4.X for almost two years now,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:03:11AM -0700, ALeine wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DELAY() in FreeBSD uses a busy loop . I am looking for something
like sleep_on_timeout() call in Linux . (dont' want to waste the CPU
cycles by DELAY'ing)
You may want to check out timeout(9) /
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:21:08PM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:08:21AM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
I'll spare a lengthy write-up because I think the patch documents it well
enough. It certainly appears to fix things here when doing very large
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:10:52AM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
On or about Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:01 , while attempting a
Zarathustra emulation [EMAIL PROTECTED] thus spake:
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:58:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: H. S. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: imminent
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:34, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
You may want to check out timeout(9) / untimeout(9), see man 9 timeout
for details.
You should not use timeout(9) without a very good reason, the callout_*
interface is prefered.
Can someone add a warning to the top of the makefile
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:12:42AM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:34, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
You may want to check out timeout(9) / untimeout(9), see man 9 timeout
for details.
You should not use timeout(9) without a very good reason, the callout_*
interface
Hello,
I have a few recent 5.3 panics I would like to submit. send-pr always bails
telling me that it is
out of space, despite the fact that the local filesystems have plenty of space
free:
pixie# send-pr -a ./backtrace -a ./uname-output -a ./messages -a
./sysctl-a-output -a
What is the proper method for submitting cores along with
backtraces to the FreeBSD development team? Is it useful to
submit cores, or is the backtrace sufficient?
Firstly, GNATS works over email and sending in a 4GB+ MIME
encoded core file could overload the mail servers of not
just the
14 matches
Mail list logo
