Re: Remote boot, but not diskless operation
Paul Saab wrote: Thierry Herbelot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Paul Saab wrote: Hi, My problem is that the NIC I'm trying to boot from is an on-board fxp on a Motorola p-III M/B (I assume there is no specific "PXE rom", as PXE may be included in the BIOS) will your "intel board" upgrade .exe work in this setup ? You need to get an updated bios which contains a newer PXE rom. Motorola should contact Intel for the updated ROM. they've done this, but their newest BIOS (8 days old) still has a 0.78 PXE revision (I've seen more recent DELL machines with a 0.99 - I assume this is better) -- Thierry Herbelot To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Remote boot, but not diskless operation
Thierry Herbelot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: they've done this, but their newest BIOS (8 days old) still has a 0.78 PXE revision (I've seen more recent DELL machines with a 0.99 - I assume this is better) No.. 0.99 is the orginal PXE v1. PXE v2 (build 78) is what you have and is highly buggy. You must request an update of the PXE rom from your motherboard manufacturer. -- Paul Saab Technical Yahoo [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do You .. uhh .. Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Remote boot, but not diskless operation
Paul Saab wrote: Thierry Herbelot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: they've done this, but their newest BIOS (8 days old) still has a 0.78 PXE revision (I've seen more recent DELL machines with a 0.99 - I assume this is better) No.. 0.99 is the orginal PXE v1. PXE v2 (build 78) is what you have and is highly buggy. You must request an update of the PXE rom from your motherboard manufacturer. I'm not at work, so all is from memory (bad). I'll check once again on monday Thanks for the info -- Thierry Herbelot To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: sysctl_kern_proc doesn't handle the case when no procs match given criteria
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 08:23:51PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote: Obviously, this isn't the desired mode of failure. Attached is a patch that will make sysctl_kern_proc return ESRCH if it didn't find any processes. AFAIK, without the patch, the only way to detect this condition (no processes match search criteria) is to check that a call into this routine via sysctl didn't modify whatever is pointed at by the oldp pointer (see sysctl(3)). I went for a much simpler patch that just skipped the struct size check if the amount of data returned was zero. This is what the old code did (effectively) before the the struct size check changed. (Patch just posted to -current). David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
c++ exceptions with pthreads
Hi, I just read your reply in the hackers mailing list regarding c++ exceptions. Does that mean that now (or from release 4.3 on) the base system g++ is bugfixed regarding SIGSEGVs with c++ exceptions? What causes the bug in exception handling? Why does the packaged g++ work? Thanks in advance regards titus To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: device driver dev. book
Thus spake Leif Neland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Just to get the facts clear: Do you ever intend to write a book? A "Developers Handbook", which will also cover device driver and kernel module programming is in work under the leadership of Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Once it has more content I can imagine a print version of this. Alex -- cat: /home/alex/.sig: No such file or directory To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: device driver dev. book
Bill Paul wrote: Some body just told me that williams Paul from Columbia University (Bill Paul @ Freebsd.org) has written that kind of book. But I can't get his exact email address at FreeBSD.org to ask him the reference. GR. Look, I have not now nor have I *ever* written a book of any kind. Whoever told you I had was wrong! Dead wrong, okay? Let me repeat: there is no book. Alright? Satisfied? Understand now? Good. Let us never speak of this again. I think he must've confused you with William Paul *Haiber*, co-author of "A Short, but Foamy, History of Beer : The Drink That Invented Itself". I can't imagine how that would happen. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: httpfs
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was at the time - socketpair(2) had totally slipped my mind ;) Umm, you want pipe(2), not socketpair(2). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: httpfs
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 04:53:34PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was at the time - socketpair(2) had totally slipped my mind ;) Umm, you want pipe(2), not socketpair(2). Actually, I want socketpair(2). pipe(2) was what I used before, and that's the reason I had a read-only file descriptor - the portalfs architecture allows for only one fd to be returned, and pipe(2) provides a one-way pipe. I dup2'd stdout and stderr of the executed program to the child fd, and the parent could read its output, yet not write to its stdin. With socketpair(2), I can dup stdin, too, and have mount_portal return a two-way pipe/fd/socket to whoever requested it. At least, that's the common/standard/easiest way to create a two-way pipe on the same fd, described in APUE :) G'luck, Peter -- This would easier understand fewer had omitted. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: httpfs
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 04:53:34PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was at the time - socketpair(2) had totally slipped my mind ;) Umm, you want pipe(2), not socketpair(2). Actually, I want socketpair(2). pipe(2) was what I used before, and that's the reason I had a read-only file descriptor - the portalfs architecture allows for only one fd to be returned, and pipe(2) provides a one-way pipe. Not in FreeBSD. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: httpfs
On 17-Mar-01 Peter Pentchev wrote: Actually, I want socketpair(2). pipe(2) was what I used before, and that's the reason I had a read-only file descriptor - the portalfs architecture allows for only one fd to be returned, and pipe(2) provides a one-way pipe. I dup2'd stdout and stderr of the executed program to the child fd, and the parent could read its output, yet not write to its stdin. pipe's are bidirectional in FreeBSD.. --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Can't install FreeBSD 4.1
Hi! I try to install FreeBSD 4.1 when the proces of copying begin, (near 20% of /bin copied) I receive such error panic: general protection fault syncing disks .. 99.. 99 99 99 automatic reboot in 15 seconds, press any key to abort. Thank you very much for any help. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Can't install FreeBSD 4.1
Sir: It would be helpful to include the output of the boot sequence, a description of your hardware. Followups to -hackers please. I try to install FreeBSD 4.1 when the proces of copying begin, (near 20% of /bin copied) I receive such error panic: general protection fault syncing disks .. 99.. 99 99 99 automatic reboot in 15 seconds, press any key to abort. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: c++ exceptions with pthreads
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 09:55:34AM +0100, Titus von Boxberg wrote: Hi, I just read your reply in the hackers mailing list regarding c++ exceptions. Does that mean that now (or from release 4.3 on) the base system g++ is bugfixed regarding SIGSEGVs with c++ exceptions? Bug, which found my friend fixed since 06.01.2001 What causes the bug in exception handling? Why does the packaged g++ work? AFAIK some software (like licq) works good. -- Rgdz,/"\ Sergey Osokin aka oZZ, \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN [EMAIL PROTECTED]X AGAINST HTML MAIL http://freebsd.org.ru/~osa/ / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: GCC Upgrade?
* Farooq Mela [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010316 23:21] wrote: Howdy, GCC 2.95.3 was just released. I did notice that there are some bug fixes in the optimizer, and some various other fixes etc. Considering the recent discussion about incorrect code generation due to -O2 and above, are there any plans to import this new release into the FreeBSD source tree? What is the "plan" for the future, is the compiler going to be upgraded when GCC gets to 3.0 (depending of course on its stability)? Or are we just going to "play it by ear"? You're too optimistic. _Every_ gcc release is supposed to "fix some bugs in the optimizer". David will sync our compiler with the latest version when he feels that it's ready for FreeBSD. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Greater than 2GB per process
Jordan Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, that single 4GB of address space is divided up into kernel data structures, which are in the address space of the process but subject to various levels of MMU-provided memory protection, and the process' own "user data." I believe the break is currently set in the middle at 2GB, and various attempts to adjust it more aggressively (in user data's favor) have been interesting but ultimately also proved to break things like BSD/OS binaries, which have their own assumptions about the setting of the break. Ahem. The other way around, actually (we increased KVM space from 256 MB to 1 GB - not 2 GB as you claim). And the problem with legacy BSDI binaries (newer ones don't have this problem) was fixed a long time ago, in 3.0 (before 3.0-RELEASE). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: GCC Upgrade?
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 10:46:42AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: GCC 2.95.3 was just released. I did notice that there are some bug fixes ... in the optimizer, and some various other fixes etc. Considering the recent discussion about incorrect code generation due to -O2 and above, I really, really don't think these fixes will help -O2. I need to do more testing with GCC 3.0, but I do have [some] hope. are there any plans to import this new release into the FreeBSD source ... some bugs in the optimizer". David will sync our compiler with the latest version when he feels that it's ready for FreeBSD. I was going to do it Friday, but the distribution file had yet to make it to any of the mirror sites. It probably has by now. So I'll do it Monday. GCC 2.95.3 will hi 4-STABLE after April 1st. Heck, April 1st might actually be the best day to do it. So if RELENG_4 is unfrozen by then, that's when I'll MFC it. ;) -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
