Re: [RFC, RFT] LDM support (aka Windows Dynamic Volumes)

2012-03-12 Thread Adrian Chadd
2012/3/11 Andrey V. Elsukov bu7c...@yandex.ru: On 11.03.2012 23:31, Adrian Chadd wrote: This is awesome! Is it just read-only, or does it allow creation/destruction of LDM volumes? It is read-only, but you can partially destroy LDM metadata on given disk. LDM keeps information about all

Re: [RFC, RFT] LDM support (aka Windows Dynamic Volumes)

2012-03-12 Thread Andrey V. Elsukov
On 12.03.2012 11:49, Adrian Chadd wrote: partitions. Actually, it is possible make better LDM support in conjunction with GEOM_RAID, but i think we don't need it :) Hah, I wouldn't say no to being able to modify (correctly) LDM metadat.a i'd also love to see say, read/write Linux LVM

Re: [RFC, RFT] LDM support (aka Windows Dynamic Volumes)

2012-03-12 Thread Oliver Pinter
On 3/12/12, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: 2012/3/11 Andrey V. Elsukov bu7c...@yandex.ru: On 11.03.2012 23:31, Adrian Chadd wrote: This is awesome! Is it just read-only, or does it allow creation/destruction of LDM volumes? It is read-only, but you can partially destroy LDM

Re: sudo through ssh broken on -current?

2012-03-12 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On 11. Mar 2012, at 23:55 , Michael Butler wrote: I noted some thing odd when executing the following .. /home/imb ssh imb@ sudo /sbin/ipfw list sudo: (malloc) /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c:2644: Failed assertion: (run-regs_mask[elm] (1U bit)) == 0 Abort Adding '-t' as a

Re: [RFC, RFT] LDM support (aka Windows Dynamic Volumes)

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Voras
On 11/03/2012 10:35, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: Hi, All i wrote GEOM_PART_LDM class. It provides basic support of Logical Disk Manager partitioning scheme [1]. Since LDM metadata is not documented i used several articles found in the web and linux implementation as reference [2]. Seems ok,

Re: sudo through ssh broken on -current?

2012-03-12 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 2012-03-12 00:55, Michael Butler wrote: I noted some thing odd when executing the following .. /home/imb ssh imb@ sudo /sbin/ipfw list sudo: (malloc) /usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c:2644: Failed assertion: (run-regs_mask[elm] (1U bit)) == 0 Abort Adding '-t' as a parameter

Double free() in libc or gdb ?

2012-03-12 Thread Alexandre Martins
Dear all, I'm currently having some trouble with the dynamic loader. I have the libc compilled with MALLOC_DEBUG flag to detect double free. When i run this piece of code (attached file) thought GDB, i have this assertion : Assertion failed: ((run-regs_mask[elm] (1U bit)) == 0), function

Re: Double free() in libc or gdb ?

2012-03-12 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:50:33PM +0100, Alexandre Martins wrote: Dear all, I'm currently having some trouble with the dynamic loader. I have the libc compilled with MALLOC_DEBUG flag to detect double free. When i run this piece of code (attached file) thought GDB, i have this assertion

Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
Hi. I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and SandyBridge Core i7s) with enabled Intel Turbo Boost in BIOS it is not use it by default,

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org пишет: Hi. I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and SandyBridge

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:15:35 +0200 Alexander

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:22, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 21:33, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ian Lepore
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 21:15 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: Hi. I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and SandyBridge Core i7s) with

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Ivan Klymenko
В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:38:16 +0200 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 22:22, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:11:28 +0200 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org пишет: On 03/12/12 22:05, Ivan Klymenko wrote: В Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:55:21 +0200 Alexander

Re: Improved Intel Turbo Boost status/control

2012-03-12 Thread Alexander Motin
On 03/12/12 22:45, Ian Lepore wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 21:15 +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: I'd like to note that recent r232793 change to cpufreq(4) in HEAD opened simple access to the Intel Turbo Boost status/control. I've found that at least two of my desktop systems (based Nehalem and

[head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64

2012-03-12 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64 TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 -

[head tinderbox] failure on i386/i386

2012-03-12 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386 TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - cleaning the object tree TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 - cvsupping the source tree TB --- 2012-03-12 16:20:00 -

Re: x220 notes

2012-03-12 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM, matt sendtom...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/08/12 01:28, Ganael LAPLANCHE wrote: On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:29:16 +0200, Vrachnis Ilias-Dimitrios wrote Hi, 2. I've read bad reviews about webcam having poor quality on GNU/Linux, so I would assume it will be the same