On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:12:45PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
What I dislike about the patch is the new kernel-private flag that is
eaten from the open(2) flags namespace. We do already have FHASLOCK,
so far the only such
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:28:48AM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:12:45PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
What I dislike about the patch is the new kernel-private flag that is
eaten from the open(2)
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:53:46AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:28:48AM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 03:12:45PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
What I dislike about the
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 02:29:09PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
What I dislike about the patch is the new kernel-private flag that is
eaten from the open(2) flags namespace. We do already have FHASLOCK,
so far the only such flag.
We can change
intf_seqcount;
to
u_int
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:40:27AM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 03:26:41PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Igor,
Igor Sysoev wrote:
Hi,
nginx-0.8.15 can use completely non-blocking sendfile() using
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 01:49:36PM +0200, Giulio Ferro wrote:
[...]
Now I try to do the same on a zfs partition on the same machine
This is what I see with ls
---
ls -la
total 4
drwxrwx--- 3 www www 4 Sep 12 13:43 .
On Sunday 20 September 2009 10:43:01 am sojdaa wrote:
Hello
Like in the subject, I want to install SVN FreeBSD repo mirror and would
like to have the possibility to create my own branches, that will be merged
with synchronized local mirror. I've done this using svk after reading the
On Monday 21 September 2009 8:03:43 am Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Hi,
Reference:
From: Alexey Shuvaev shuv...@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:56:59 +0200
Message-id: 20090918125659.ga88...@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Alexey Shuvaev
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, John Baldwin wrote:
My comment is to just use 4.x (seriously). A true 386 is going to be quite
slow and the overhead of many things added that work well on newer processors
is going to be very painful on a 386 (probably on a 486 as well). 4.x runs
fine on a 386 and should
9 matches
Mail list logo