On Mon, Apr 29 2019, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2019/04/28 09:45, Brian Callahan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/28/19 6:01 AM, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 08:55:16AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:55:33PM +0800, Nathanael Rensen wrote:
>>
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:35:02PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
> kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
> making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
> become less locked.
>
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Linux doesn't have this yet, so this is pure guesswork, and I pulled
> the name out of my ass. But the numbers I get look random enough.
>
> ok?
>
Sure, ok mlarkin if you didn't commit already
> P.S. I think it would make sense
Linux doesn't have this yet, so this is pure guesswork, and I pulled
the name out of my ass. But the numbers I get look random enough.
ok?
P.S. I think it would make sense to rename the device IDs and the
strings to be similar to their companions on the chip. I'll send
out a separate
I'd prefer if centering were a seperate function to resizing to a
fraction of the screen size, as I'd like to be able to center a window
*after* resizing it to my liking.
x11/xdotool could be used by anybody needing the resizing functionality,
for example,
bind-key 4-r "xdotool
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 06:23:57PM +0100, Ricardo Mestre wrote:
> Went through my old sent emails and saw this one still pending on my tree.
>
> Is this OK?
>
> On 13:02 Wed 07 Nov , Ricardo Mestre wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > tcpdrop(8) needs to access only two files, in this case /etc/hosts and
On 01/05/19(Wed) 16:35, David Gwynne wrote:
> i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
> kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
> making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
> become less locked.
>
> it assumes that
Ricardo Mestre(ser...@helheim.mooo.com) on 2019.04.30 18:23:57 +0100:
> Went through my old sent emails and saw this one still pending on my tree.
>
> Is this OK?
you got an
OK bluhm@
on Nov 7th.
and since i cant see a problem with it, ok benno@ too ;)
> On 13:02 Wed 07 Nov , Ricardo
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 07:13:55PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > So the diff below removes the fallback path and all associated code and
> > variables.
>
> > I have left out some minor cleanups for now to ease reviews.
>
> Here's a diff that amends the signature of gettime() and
i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
become less locked.
it assumes that the existing locking in kqueue_scan is in the right
10 matches
Mail list logo
