On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:00:27AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 05:07:30PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > For new installs, it seems adequate to base the number on the actual
> > hardware,
> > assuming the CRYPTO volume will stay in that hardware for a while.
> >
> >
Greg Steuck wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> I could see some value in tightening the conditions to always check
> `!= expected`. I don't see enough improvement from separating the error
> case of -1 from the incomplete read case considering the otherwise
> identical behavior.
Like this? The
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 03:51:38PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Agreed. (Re bcrypt, I usually completely ignore auto rounds, I had just
> forgotten to set that up on the machine where I noticed the problem..)
>
> Also, am I right in thinking that this only affects the time when
> entering the
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 10:37:36AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> Creating new volumes prompts
> Passphrase:
> Re-type passphrase:
> which is sane for interative usage, but -s (which omits prompts) to read
> from stdin also prompts twice.
>
> I think that's neither intuitive nor
Joel encouraged me to switch to '-r auto' by default sooner than later.
The alternative installer diff on tech@ would thus be obsolete/a NOOP.
If you do encrypted disk installs on one machine, but use them on another,
or you want a specific number of rounds, just use '-r N' during creation
or
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:13:23 +
> From: Klemens Nanni
>
> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:00:27AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 05:07:30PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > For new installs, it seems adequate to base the number on the actual
> > > hardware,
> > >
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:13:23 +
> > From: Klemens Nanni
> >
> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:00:27AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 05:07:30PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > For new installs, it seems adequate to base the number on
On 2023/08/11 16:43, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:13:23 +
> > From: Klemens Nanni
> >
> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:00:27AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 05:07:30PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > For new installs, it seems adequate to
> From: "Theo de Raadt"
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:50:32 -0600
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 11:13:23 +
> > > From: Klemens Nanni
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:00:27AM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 05:07:30PM +,
Here's a simple diff to add some more sanity checks in uvm_pagelookup().
Nothing fancy, it helps documenting the flags and reduce the difference
with NetBSD. This is part of my on-going work on UVM.
ok?
Index: uvm/uvm_page.c
===
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:12:19 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> Here's a simple diff to add some more sanity checks in uvm_pagelookup().
>
> Nothing fancy, it helps documenting the flags and reduce the difference
> with NetBSD. This is part of my on-going work on UVM.
>
> ok?
NetBSD
When stopping a machine, with "halt -p" for example, secondary CPUs are
removed from the scheduler before smr_flush() is called. So there's no
need for the SMR thread to peg itself to such CPUs. This currently
isn't a problem because we use per-CPU runqueues but it doesn't work
with a global
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:34:45 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 11/08/23(Fri) 20:41, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:12:19 +0200
> > > From: Martin Pieuchot
> > >
> > > Here's a simple diff to add some more sanity checks in uvm_pagelookup().
> > >
> > > Nothing
On 11/08/23(Fri) 20:41, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:12:19 +0200
> > From: Martin Pieuchot
> >
> > Here's a simple diff to add some more sanity checks in uvm_pagelookup().
> >
> > Nothing fancy, it helps documenting the flags and reduce the difference
> > with NetBSD.
14 matches
Mail list logo
