getty: remove gettytab f0, f1, f2 capabilities

2013-12-10 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Bad news: That terminal you hooked up 30 years ago--okay, okay. Same thing as yesterday's lpd diff: Remove from getty the f0, f1, f2 gettytab capabilities that were used to poke magic numbers into sgtty. The modern replacement for f# is the set i#, o#, c#, l# to poke magic numbers into termios.

Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Christian Weisgerber
New attempt, now that the userland has been cleaned up. This diff kills the remaining parts of the COMPAT_43 tty handling in the kernel. (There are some further network-related COMPAT_43 fragments that are not touched by this.) Comments? ok? R compat/common/tty_43.c M conf/files M

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Mark Kettenis
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:48:41 +0100 From: Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de New attempt, now that the userland has been cleaned up. This diff kills the remaining parts of the COMPAT_43 tty handling in the kernel. (There are some further network-related COMPAT_43 fragments that

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Mark Kettenis: Noticed TIOCGSID in that list. Don't think that is a 4.3 compat ioctl. Rather a System V compat ioctl. Well, it's implemented in compat/common/tty_43.c. If we want to save it, we need to move it to kern/tty.c:ttioctl(). Do we? -- Christian naddy Weisgerber

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Theo de Raadt
Noticed TIOCGSID in that list. Don't think that is a 4.3 compat ioctl. Rather a System V compat ioctl. Well, it's implemented in compat/common/tty_43.c. If we want to save it, we need to move it to kern/tty.c:ttioctl(). Do we? that's a seperate issue. It can be recovered later ;)

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Mark Kettenis
From: Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:49:26 -0700 Noticed TIOCGSID in that list. Don't think that is a 4.3 compat ioctl. Rather a System V compat ioctl. Well, it's implemented in compat/common/tty_43.c. If we want to save it, we need to move it

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Marc Espie
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:31:31PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:48:41 +0100 From: Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de New attempt, now that the userland has been cleaned up. This diff kills the remaining parts of the COMPAT_43 tty handling in the kernel.

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Mark Kettenis
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:05:01 +0100 From: Marc Espie es...@nerim.net On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:31:31PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:48:41 +0100 From: Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de New attempt, now that the userland has been cleaned up. This

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Marc Espie
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:05:01PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: Note that tcgetsid(3) is part of posix 2008... I don't see this as a noxious interface, so I don't see any reason not to keep it... My bad, it's XSI in posix 2008, but I was reading posix 2013, which has: Issue 7 The tcgetsid()

Re: Remove 4.3BSD tty compatibility, take 2

2013-12-10 Thread Philip Guenther
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote: Well, we don't actually have tcgetsid(3); only the ioctl that can be used to implement it. And tcgetsid(3) is an XSI extension, so not a required POSIX interface. Issue 7 ... The tcgetsid() function is moved

PATCH: Fix invalid size to 'memcmp' in 'rn_lexobetter'

2013-12-10 Thread Kieran Devlin
maybe someone could verify commit this patch this bug was introduced in r1.28 of ‘src/sys/net/radix.c’ i found it while going through source codes Index: sys/net/radix.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/radix.c,v retrieving revision

Re: PATCH: Allow shared semaphores to be really shared

2013-12-10 Thread Vadim Zhukov
2013/12/9 Ted Unangst t...@tedunangst.com: On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 19:49, Vadim Zhukov wrote: So what's the decision? Are there any objections still? If not, can I have a pair of okays? KDE4 really needs a decision to be made: people already had apps crashing without this diff, so I've put a