TB --- 2011-12-25 04:29:40 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-25 04:29:40 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-12-25 04:29:40 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-25 04:29:59 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-25 04:29:59 - /u
TB --- 2011-12-25 03:52:52 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-25 03:52:52 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2011-12-25 03:52:52 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-25 03:53:08 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-25 03:53:08 - /usr
On 12/24/2011 12:04, O. Hartmann wrote:
There maybe serious reasons having the Linuxulator, i do not know. But
if not, why spending rare developer resources on that? As far as I'm
concerned, the only real reason having the Linuxulator is some stuff
from Adobe for desktop systems, Flash. That's it
On 2011-12-24 19:21, Marius Strobl wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 03:43:51PM +, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
...
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
...
stage 4.4: buildi
On Dec 24, 2011 6:46 PM, "FreeBSD Tinderbox" wrote:
>
> TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - tinderbox 2.8 running on
freebsd-current.sentex.ca
> TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for
powerpc64/powerpc
> TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - cleaning the object tree
> TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13
TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:44 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:56 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 21:13:56 - /u
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 03:43:51PM +, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
> TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - tinderbox 2.8 running on
> freebsd-current.sentex.ca
> TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
> TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - cleaning the object tree
> TB --- 2
On 11-12-24 09:27 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
Hi.
I've implemented patch for logical block provisioning (aka UNMAP, TRIM,
BIO_DELETE) support for the CAM da driver in HEAD and would like to ask for
review, testing and hardware support information.
Depending on device capabilities I use several d
Hi,
Well, I don't chime in, usually. However, enough is enough. There are many
merits to both *BSD and Linux. I don't agree with benchmarks that slant either
way, as I'm sure people in both camps will agree. Please be adult and just
agree to disagree. Technology applicable to the problem a
On 12/23/11 12:44, Alexander Best wrote:
[...]
>> Many suggested that the Linux binaries be run via the FreeBSD Linux
>> emulation. Unchanged.
>> There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit.
>
> plus the current emulation layer is far from complete. a lot of stuff hasn't
> bee
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:54:50 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:55:13 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-12-24 13:55:13 - /u
On 12/23/11 12:38, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>
> On 23.12.11 12:48, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> Look at Steve Kargls problem. He investigated a SCHED_ULE problem in a
>> way that is far beyond enough! He gave tests, insights of his setup,
>> bad performance compared to SCHED_4BSD and what happend? We are
Hi.
I've implemented patch for logical block provisioning (aka UNMAP, TRIM,
BIO_DELETE) support for the CAM da driver in HEAD and would like to ask
for review, testing and hardware support information.
Depending on device capabilities I use several different methods to
implement it. Method c
Hi everyone,
I started running FreeBSD9-RC1 on this server. Yesterday, RC3, I
noticed that I could not get IPMI console to apply the necessary
security patches. A reset in IPMI fixed the problem temporarily. I
keep getting those messages:
Dec 24 15:35:12 mail kernel: ums0: at uhub2, port 2, addr
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
This almost builds in -current too. I had to add the following:
- NO_MODULES to de-bloat the compile time
- MK_CTF=no to build -current on FreeBSD.9. The kernel .mk files are
still broken (depend on nonstandard/
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any
longer?
i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
are:
The same a
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Well, the whole kernel is bloated at the moment, sorry.
I've been trying to build the _bare minimum_ required to bootstrap
-HEAD on these embedded boards and I can't get the kernel down below 5
megabytes - ie, one with FFS (with options disabled), MIPS,
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any longer?
i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
are:
The same as it has always been. It avoids some bloat.
1654496 bytes with the flag set
vs.
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> >On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> >...
> >>>the gcc(1) man page states the following:
> >>>
> >>>"
> >>>This extra alignment does consume extra stack space, an
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> >Well, the whole kernel is bloated at the moment, sorry.
> >
> >I've been trying to build the _bare minimum_ required to bootstrap
> >-HEAD on these embedded boards and I can't get the kernel down below 5
> >megaby
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> >On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> >>
> >>>is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any
> >>>longer?
> >>>i built GENERIC (including mod
Am 24.12.2011 um 12:06 schrieb Bruce Evans:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> Well, the whole kernel is bloated at the moment, sorry.
>>
>> I've been trying to build the _bare minimum_ required to bootstrap
>> -HEAD on these embedded boards and I can't get the kernel down below 5
Am 24.12.2011 00:56, schrieb Alexander Best:
> hi there,
>
> is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any longer?
> i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
> are:
>
> 1654496 bytes with the flag set
> vs.
> 1654952 bytes with
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> >is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any
> >longer?
> >i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
> >are:
>
> The same as it has always been. It av
On Sat Dec 24 11, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>
> >is -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 really necessary for i386 builds any
> >longer?
> >i built GENERIC (including modules) with and without that flag. the results
> >are:
>
> The same as it has always been. It av
On 12/20/11 18:19, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> On a related topic, does anyone have experience on cross-building
>> nanobsd images ?
> Hi Luigi,
>
> I using "little" cross-building nanobsd images (i386 on amd64 and vice versa).
> All my pa
26 matches
Mail list logo
