ù³¿Åøò¶g
18Ë¢¨fè
ù}jAK©ù©aJüÓÌgGb`GAL`ÏÔlÈC
y¨300¼zøòy¶'ÈÜ'Gb`z
Ê^tOrA³¿ÅwèZÖ}ù©
ù´ØrfIùsû^±s!
yÆENO1Ìiµ¦}jAbNz
³¿Åêx©Äù©
¢ù±ÆA
Úùvhttp://www.fun-club.net
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
On 20-Dec-01 Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 12:16:03PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
However, kthreads should tsleep() with their current priority, not PPAUSE.
current meaning pri_level or pri_native ? What if one tries to
tsleep()
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:46:40AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
I think pri_native is just an implementation detail which shouldn't
be used or visible to threads. It used used by the priority propagation
mechanism to hold the original pri_level. Threads should just use their
original priority
I got a panic with today's current. I don't know I can reproduce this
panic or not...
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 1; lapic.id = 0100
fault virtual address = 0x14
fault code = supervisor write, page not present
instruction pointer =
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:46:40AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
I think pri_native is just an implementation detail which shouldn't
be used or visible to threads. It used used by the priority propagation
mechanism to hold the original pri_level.
Hi, I have just managed to repetedly panic -CURRENT... How you ask? I'll tell
you :-D
The short story is Run a linux version of XFree86, here's the long story:
first, I got the linux version of XFree86, along with all it's driver modules
(compliled under linux of course). Then in
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
I got a panic with today's current. I don't know I can reproduce this
panic or not...
This probably is in:
1015if (LIST_FIRST(phd-phd_pcblist) == NULL) {
1016LIST_REMOVE(phd,
At Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:06:38 -0600 (CST),
Jonathan Lemon wrote:
I got a panic with today's current. I don't know I can reproduce this
panic or not...
This probably is in:
1015if (LIST_FIRST(phd-phd_pcblist) == NULL) {
1016LIST_REMOVE(phd,
On 21-Dec-01 Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:46:40AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
I think pri_native is just an implementation detail which shouldn't
be used or visible to threads. It used used by the priority propagation
mechanism to
Hi,
Some binaries, especially from the ports tree on my
system just failed to start, bringing the message:
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/lib/libutil.so.3: Undefined symbol __stdoutp
Could somebody give me a hint what I'm missing here.
Since I couldn't start cvsup, my system ist somewhat
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Jean Louis Ntakpe wrote:
Some binaries, especially from the ports tree on my
system just failed to start, bringing the message:
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/lib/libutil.so.3: Undefined symbol __stdoutp
Could somebody give me a hint what I'm missing here.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:53:49AM -0800, Doug White wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Jean Louis Ntakpe wrote:
Some binaries, especially from the ports tree on my
system just failed to start, bringing the message:
/usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: /usr/lib/libutil.so.3: Undefined symbol __stdoutp
The latest round of KSE changes are available from
http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/thediff
These changes represent a work in progress.
Basically the state is:
GENERIC compiles
(I don't know yet if it runs but I doubt it.)
The following changes have been made:
The 'thread' structure is no longer
I can only hope that our illustrious congress has grown as tired of
spam as I have and will fix the law to simply ban it.
-Matt
That would help, (most SPAM I receive even in Germany is from USA), but
spammers would move offshore from USA
subscribe
--
We got a thousand points of light, For the homeless man
We got a kinder gentler machine gun hand - Neil Young
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Hmm, -current has same problem. It should fix in -current...
---BeginMessage---
Hi all,
fxp_stop() of the latest fxp driver do SOFTWARE_RESET when called.
Shouldn't this be SELECTIVE_RESET?
As I'm not familiar with fxp, would someone check and commit it to the
repositry? The current code
This is yesterday's -current.
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 0; lapic.id =
fault virtual address = 0x114
fault code = supervisor read, page not present
instruction pointer = 0x8:0xc01b6c40
stack pointer = 0x10:0xf1947cd8
frame
Does anybody have an example of how to call MULTI_DRIVER_MODULE? It
looks broken to me, but I could of course be wrong...
Thanks.
--
Chad David[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACNS Inc. Calgary, Alberta Canada
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current
Chad David wrote:
Does anybody have an example of how to call MULTI_DRIVER_MODULE? It
looks broken to me, but I could of course be wrong...
I would not recommend using it. Just use several DRIVER_MODULE
declarations as required. In fact, I think I might remove it since nothing
uses it yet.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 09:55:37PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Chad David wrote:
Does anybody have an example of how to call MULTI_DRIVER_MODULE? It
looks broken to me, but I could of course be wrong...
I would not recommend using it. Just use several DRIVER_MODULE
declarations as
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Don't know how interesting this can be, but i am writing
(no plans to commit it, unless people find it interesting)
some code to implement a weight-based instead of priority-based
scheduler. The code is basically the WF2Q+ scheme which is
already part
MEXTFREE results in a call to _mext_free() which is only defined within
subr_mbuf.c, and is not static. Should the prototype be moved into
sys/mbuf.h, or should MEXTFREE be moved into subr_mbuf.c, or is it ok
like this?
Thanks.
--
Chad David[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACNS Inc. Calgary,
22 matches
Mail list logo
