Not to put too fine of a point on it, and hopefully, this
won't be taken as a personal attack, but...
[ Mr. X ] wrote:
> [ Mr. W ] wrote:
> > As I recall, *total* "functionality" of the subsystems wasn't promised for
> > 5.0-R, but the infrastructure *was* promised. I expect
> > you are repondin
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I would very much like to see the KSE work in "5.0", but I still
> would rather delay that for a later release instead of delaying
> "5.0" for another three or four months.
What about the fact that the KSE work was agreed to be
committed if finished in August at the Use
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:49:21PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
>
> --- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:16:15PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
> >
> > > maybe, but ther's no dsa.c under src/crypto/openssh on ftp mirror
> > i
> > > am updating from -- or is it a
Like I said... Count me in...
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Pleas guys,
> cut it out...
>
> Take a copy, run it, beat on it..
> let me know if it fails..
>
> thanks..
>
> (p.s. I'll need to put a new patch up because -current has changed.. :-)
jim
--
ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's alwa
On 28-Aug-01 Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>> Actualy peter is most of the way through the alpha support as we speak.
>> I wouldn't know what the alpha looks like from a architecture pov
>> if it came and kicked me..
>> I did some small parts already but peter just checked in more in
Matt Dillon wrote:
>Just for myself, I am seriously considering just throwing the whole lot
>(-current, that is) away and starting over from -stable. I spent 20 hours
>last weekend trying to unwind even part of the VM system from Giant, and
>failed utterly. I'd love to see the KS
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> I'd really appreciate it if you could make the mechanical changes
> required to get it to the point where it at least compiles on alpha
> using beast.freebsd.org. At that point, the people on -alpha should be
> willing to test your patch and help fix any problems that come
At 10:52 PM 8/27/2001 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > >fxp0: port 0xc400-0xc43f mem
> > >0xd5001000-0xd5001fff irq 11 at device 8.0 on pci1
> > >fxp0: *** DISABLING DYNAMIC STANDBY MODE IN EEPROM ***
> > >fxp0: New EEPROM ID: 0x49a0
> > >fxp0: EEPROM checksum @ 0xff: 0xe441 ->
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >fxp0: port 0xc400-0xc43f mem
> >0xd5001000-0xd5001fff irq 11 at device 8.0 on pci1
> >fxp0: *** DISABLING DYNAMIC STANDBY MODE IN EEPROM ***
> >fxp0: New EEPROM ID: 0x49a0
> >fxp0: EEPROM checksum @ 0xff: 0xe441 -> 0xe443
> >fxp0: *** PLEASE REBOOT THE SYSTEM NOW FOR CORRECT
--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:16:15PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
>
> > maybe, but ther's no dsa.c under src/crypto/openssh on ftp mirror
> i
> > am updating from -- or is it a makefile problem of not picking up
> the
> > one under openssl?
>
> There's
"David O'Brien" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:39:23AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I wasn't in favor of KSE's in 5.0 at Usenix, but saw that I was in an obvio
us
> > minority. I'm still in the minority and realize that and don't expect my
> > opinions here to make any difference. I j
Tha actual impact on John will be minimal at this time.
It'll be greater later.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 08:03:15PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > I find it distressing that you are the *only* person doing SMPng work,
> > > and people aren't giving yo
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Actualy peter is most of the way through the alpha support as we speak.
> I wouldn't know what the alpha looks like from a architecture pov
> if it came and kicked me..
> I did some small parts already but peter just checked in more in P4.
Latest news: The alpha made it
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 08:03:15PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > I find it distressing that you are the *only* person doing SMPng work,
> > and people aren't giving your opinion a 10x weighting.
>
> I'm not the only person, and I only get one vote.
But you are the leading expert in SMPng, and
This project has always been more than just its core developers,
whomever they might be at any one time (and if history has shown us
anything, it's that it's a constantly changing cast). This means that
anyone is free to chime in with their opinion on any project decision,
just as the people doin
On 28-Aug-01 David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:39:23AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>> I wasn't in favor of KSE's in 5.0 at Usenix, but saw that I was in an
>> obvious
>> minority. I'm still in the minority and realize that and don't expect my
>> opinions here to make any differenc
Pleas guys,
cut it out...
Take a copy, run it, beat on it..
let me know if it fails..
thanks..
(p.s. I'll need to put a new patch up because -current has changed.. :-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:36:56PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
> Actually, I'd like to see both projects proceed, but apparently what
> non-core contributers to FreeBSD think doesn't matter.
It is an issue of effort and practicality. We are not talking about what
should be the default window manage
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:13:19PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>>Count my vote as a go-for-it.
>>
>
> Blah. You're vote doesn't mean jack in this.
> Unless you are one actively working on the 5-CURRENT kernel (SMPng
> specifically), or are funding 5-CURRENT kernel develop
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 11:47:30AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Blah. You're vote doesn't mean jack in this.
>
> Be that as it may, this kind of message does mean something, but it's
> nothing positive. We've had enough nastiness in this area already.
> If you don't like what Jim's saying, why
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 6:28 PM -0500 8/27/01, Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>> The patches seem relatively benign, and after some basic
>> immediate testing, they should be committed to -current.
>> That's all I'm trying to say.
>
>
> Then shut up and help test it. That's what KSE needs,
> some
On Monday, 27 August 2001 at 18:43:13 -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:13:19PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
>>
>> Count my vote as a go-for-it.
>
> Blah. You're vote doesn't mean jack in this.
Be that as it may, this kind of message does mean something, but it's
nothing posit
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:39:23AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> I wasn't in favor of KSE's in 5.0 at Usenix, but saw that I was in an obvious
> minority. I'm still in the minority and realize that and don't expect my
> opinions here to make any difference. I just wanted to voice my concerns.
I
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:13:19PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
>
> Count my vote as a go-for-it.
Blah. You're vote doesn't mean jack in this.
Unless you are one actively working on the 5-CURRENT kernel (SMPng
specifically), or are funding 5-CURRENT kernel development; you really
don't have any righ
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 02:48:21PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I don't WANT to commit without more testing and more support for the other
> platforms. However I need support from the people DOING
> those platforms to go further.
For $500-$600 I can put you on a 500MHz 21164 Alpha.
I've inve
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:34:06AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> Just to get this out in the public: I for one think 5.x has enough changes in
> it and would like for KSE to be postponed to 6.0-current and 6.0-release. I
> know that I am in the minority on this, but wanted to say it anyways.
You
At 5:09 PM -0700 8/27/01, Darryl Okahata wrote:
> Is there some reason why KSE couldn't be integrated
>ASAP *AFTER* 5.0 is released?
>
>[ Personally, I'd like to see it in 5.0, but, with all the qualms that
> people seem to have, I'm curious as to why it can't be integrated
> immediately
Actualy peter is most of the way through the alpha support as we speak.
I wouldn't know what the alpha looks like from a architecture pov
if it came and kicked me..
I did some small parts already but peter just checked in more in P4.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:44:04PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> This compiles and runs pretty solidly on 386.
> it needs people who understand the other architectures to make
> the appropriate changes and send them to me (or check them int P4)
Have you even tried compiling this on beast.freebs
At 6:28 PM -0500 8/27/01, Jim Bryant wrote:
>The patches seem relatively benign, and after some basic
>immediate testing, they should be committed to -current.
>That's all I'm trying to say.
Then shut up and help test it. That's what KSE needs,
some people who are willing to help out with the wo
At 6:59 PM -0500 8/27/01, Jim Bryant wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>What I explicitly said in the above
>>message (and which you explicitly deleted) was that KSE should
>>wait for a later release if the remaining work is not done. If
>>you have some other opinion, that is fine, but do not rew
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 11:10:55AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Compiling sources cvs'ed this morning (Aug 27th), I get this error:
>
> cd /auto/roy/dist/pub/FreeBSD/CURRENT/src/usr.bin/file; make build-tools
> make: don't know how to make build-tools. Stop
> *** Error code 2
Are you sure y
Jim Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FreeBSD is going to be left in the dust unless both the SMPng *AND* KSE proje
> cts are integrated into 5.0.
Is there some reason why KSE couldn't be integrated ASAP *AFTER*
5.0 is released?
[ Personally, I'd like to see it in 5.0, but, with all the
Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's written for 4.X, but might work for -current (you'll have to
> > disable the checks for 4.X, at the very least). You use it like this:
> >
> > dmesg | scanirq
>
> It's completely obsoleted by devinfo and pciconf's '-v' flag.
>
> Sorry. 8)
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 5:02 PM -0500 8/27/01, Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>
>>> We can't just keep pushing back the release date because "some
>>> very important enhancements" could be made. It will ALWAYS be
>>> true that there are more "very important enhancement
On 27-Aug-01 Jim Bryant wrote:
> As I recall, *total* "functionality" of the subsystems wasn't promised for
> 5.0-R, but the infrastructure *was* promised. I expect
> you are reponding to my post in the other thread...
Grr, do you develop software? Hmm, well, no matter what you do, I'm sure w
Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:09:53PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>>>
>>>
My personal check list before committing it to -current is:
- an honest shot at
:I'm not fundamentally opposed to KSE: I would like to see it in the system
:as much as you, and am quite aware of the potential benefits. I just want
:to make sure we don't go three years without a stable release to get
:there. If the answer to the questions is either fine, or addressible,
:..
At 5:02 PM -0500 8/27/01, Jim Bryant wrote:
>Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>>We can't just keep pushing back the release date because "some
>>very important enhancements" could be made. It will ALWAYS be
>>true that there are more "very important enhancements" on
>>the horizon, and you can't keep runn
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:09:53PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
> >
> > >My personal check list before committing it to -current is:
> > >- an honest shot at getting the Alpha working. Sho
At 2:48 PM -0700 8/27/01, Julian Elischer wrote:
>I don't WANT to commit without more testing and more support for
>the other platforms. However I need support from the people DOING
>those platforms to go further.
>
>I also want more people to try the patches. So far the only problem
>Matt Dillon
Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>
> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>> At 1:49 PM -0700 8/27/01, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>
>>> > >If there are grave concerns about having KSE and SMPng in
>>> > > 5.X, then why not push back the release date? The value far
>>> > > outweighs the extra months needed to ge
On 27-Aug-01 Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>
> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>> At 1:49 PM -0700 8/27/01, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>
>>> > >If there are grave concerns about having KSE and SMPng in
>>> > > 5.X, then why not push back the release date? The value far
>>> > > outweighs the extra month
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 1:49 PM -0700 8/27/01, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>
>> > >If there are grave concerns about having KSE and SMPng in
>> > > 5.X, then why not push back the release date? The value far
>> > > outweighs the extra months needed to get it finished and out
>> > > t
At 1:49 PM -0700 8/27/01, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > If there are grave concerns about having KSE and SMPng in
> > > 5.X, then why not push back the release date? The value far
> > > outweighs the extra months needed to get it finished and out
> > > the door, ...etc...
> >
>> Good idea
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>
> >My personal check list before committing it to -current is:
> >- an honest shot at getting the Alpha working. Shouldn't be too hard.
> > I'll work on this if nobody else will.
> >- finish
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
>Sheesh. Everyone is so negative! Well, I'm going to be too.
>
>I think compared to some of the other things that have been thrown into
>-current, the KSE stuff will be the LEAST disruptive. Don't go bashing
>Julian for coming up with a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>My personal check list before committing it to -current is:
>- an honest shot at getting the Alpha working. Shouldn't be too hard.
> I'll work on this if nobody else will.
>- finish the userland build stuff.
>- carefully reread all of the key
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> This does seem prudent to me. We should have at least a few more
> people running these changes before they get committed to current,
> and preferably on more than the i386 platform. If we are going to
> be serious about supporting more hardware
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 04:00:35PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote:
>
>
> Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> > :> and preferably on more than the i386 platform. If we are going to
> > :> be serious about supporting more hardware platforms, then we have
> > :> to start treating them more seriously when major chang
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 01:16:15PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
> maybe, but ther's no dsa.c under src/crypto/openssh on ftp mirror i
> am updating from -- or is it a makefile problem of not picking up the
> one under openssl?
There's not supposed to be..it was removed 3 months ago.
Kris
PGP si
Matt Dillon wrote:
> :> and preferably on more than the i386 platform. If we are going to
> :> be serious about supporting more hardware platforms, then we have
> :> to start treating them more seriously when major changes like this
> :> come along. If we can't get some broader testing of thi
> >>>I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
> >>>to
> >>>the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> >>>then this is the time to speak up!
> >>>
> >
> > I have one system that I've been maintaining/updating since the
> > 2.X
< said:
> FreeBSD is going to be left in the dust unless both the SMPng *AND*
> KSE projects are integrated into 5.0.
I care about having a system that works well and does what I ask of
it. What the Linux horde is doing is of little concern to me, and I
suspect the same goes for a number of oth
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >
> > > How much faster (or slower) will it be for threaded programs (for
> > > various numbers of CPUs)? I don't see how it can be faster for a single
> > > CPU (interr
:> and preferably on more than the i386 platform. If we are going to
:> be serious about supporting more hardware platforms, then we have
:> to start treating them more seriously when major changes like this
:> come along. If we can't get some broader testing of this done in
:> the next few wee
Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>>I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
>>>to
>>>the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>>>then this is the time to speak up!
>>>
>
> I have one system that I've been maintaining/updating since
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> "5.0" (or whatever name it will go by) is slated for November, right?
> And the plan was that a new 6.0-current branch wouldn't even be STARTED
> until sometime next year, because we'll be concentrating on the
> reliability of 5.x. These kernel changes have to go in be
> >I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
> >to
> >the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> >then this is the time to speak up!
I have one system that I've been maintaining/updating since the
2.X days and I feel it's
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Julian Elischer writes:
>
>
>>I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
>>to
>>the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>>then this is the time to speak up!
>>
>
> I sa
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > How much faster (or slower) will it be for threaded programs (for
> > various numbers of CPUs)? I don't see how it can be faster for a single
> > CPU (interrupt threads in the kernel show that using t
--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:31:59PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
>
> > ===> libssh
> > make: don't know how to make dsa.c. Stop
> > *** Error code 2
>
> Something is wrong with your source..perhaps you didn't update it
> completely.
>
> Kris
maybe,
Julian Elischer wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>
>>On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
>>
>>>I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
>>>support
>>>to
>>>the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>>>then this is the time to speak up!
>>>
>>
The mecanincal changes in C code are pretty simple,
but you really need a running machine to do them because
you need to change-compile-change-compile-change-compile (etc.)
It took me about 1 day to do the i386 specific things..
Having doen that is should take someone with a running alpha
abut a
Sheesh. Everyone is so negative! Well, I'm going to be too.
I think compared to some of the other things that have been thrown into
-current, the KSE stuff will be the LEAST disruptive. Don't go bashing
Julian for coming up with a reasoned approach to adding them, discussing
the
Assignment:
There is no reason for the NCCD constant to exist anymore.
The CCD driver already has cloning support but CCDs "softc"
structure is statically allocated for NCCD devices.
Change the CCD driver to dynamically allocate memory as needed,
the MD driver can be used as example as the ove
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Julian Elischer writes:
>
> >I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
> >to
> >the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> >then this is the time t
At 10:39 AM -0700 8/27/01, John Baldwin wrote:
>On 27-Aug-01 Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > I think waiting for 6.0-current is too long. Perhaps after 5.0-release.
>> If we get this in 5.0, we might be able to have a usable kse threads
>> library for 5.1 or 5.2.
>
>I'm predicting a short release cy
On 27-Aug-01 Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> <
>> said:
>>
>> > Just to get this out in the public: I for one think 5.x has enough changes
>> > in
>> > it and would like for KSE to be postponed to 6.0-current and
>> > 6.0-release.
>>
>> I agree.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> > How much faster (or slower) will it be for threaded programs (for
> > various numbers of CPUs)? I don't see how it can be faster for a single
> > CPU (interrupt threads in the kernel show that using thre
One thing I forgot, sorry.
If there is a considerable amount of people, i would appreciate it if we get
the 'common' commits that go to current filtered through p4 in some way.
I would dislike it to have to resort to editing every single delta . . .
Ciao, derweil.
--
Carlo
> How about this . .
* Carlo Dapor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010827 13:49] wrote:
> How about this . . .
>
> Although not running a multi-processor machine, are there guinnea-pigs, like
> me, who run current and do not mind carrying Julians work in our kernel.
>
> As I understand there is no set time-line for SMPng integ
How about this . . .
Although not running a multi-processor machine, are there guinnea-pigs, like
me, who run current and do not mind carrying Julians work in our kernel.
As I understand there is no set time-line for SMPng integration, is there ?
I would not mind running KSE, and that only on a
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> (phk-isms)
I found Poul-Henning's comments struck a chord with me. I agree with his
comments that a commit at this point would be premature, and that more
review is required. In particular, it seems like his observation that we
need additional e
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Just to get this out in the public: I for one think 5.x has enough changes in
> > it and would like for KSE to be postponed to 6.0-current and
> > 6.0-release.
>
> I agree. I'd like to see this stuff happen, but I think it's too
> dis
Julian Elischer writes:
>
> Can the IA64 and Alpha developers (Arm too?)
> look at the KSE patch set at
> http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/thediff
>
> This compiles and runs pretty solidly on 386.
> it needs people who understand the other architectures to make
> the appropriate changes a
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
> How much faster (or slower) will it be for threaded programs (for
> various numbers of CPUs)? I don't see how it can be faster for a single
> CPU (interrupt threads in the kernel show that using threads tends to
> pessimize both efficiency and latency f
Compiling sources cvs'ed this morning (Aug 27th), I get this error:
cd /auto/roy/dist/pub/FreeBSD/CURRENT/src/usr.bin/file; make build-tools
make: don't know how to make build-tools. Stop
*** Error code 2
Stop in /auto/roy/dist/pub/FreeBSD/CURRENT/src.
*** Error code 1
- JimP
To Unsubscribe:
>
> From sources this morning when trying to build a kernel:
>
> (pro2)502}make
> cc -c -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
>-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual
>-fformat-extensions -ansi -g -nostdinc -I- -I. -I../..
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Julian Elischer writes:
>I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
>to
>the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>then this is the time to speak up!
I say "No, not yet".
Not yet, because in practi
On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
>> > I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
>> > support
>> > to
>> > the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>> > then this is the ti
On 27-Aug-01 Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
>> > I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
>> > support
>> > to
>> > the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
>> > th
< said:
> Just to get this out in the public: I for one think 5.x has enough changes in
> it and would like for KSE to be postponed to 6.0-current and
> 6.0-release.
I agree. I'd like to see this stuff happen, but I think it's too
disruptive a change while we still haven't yet gotten over many
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
> > support
> > to
> > the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> > then this is the time to speak up!
> >
> > At this stage a commit
From sources this morning when trying to build a kernel:
(pro2)502}make
cc -c -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual
-fformat-extensions -ansi -g -nostdinc -I- -I. -I../../.. -I../../.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
> > support
> > to
> > the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> > then this is the time to speak up!
> >
> > At
Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
> I would ask that we get some indication from the IA64/Alpha/etc folks
> about this *before* you commit, even if they're not ready with patches
> yet, it would be wise to know how long before they would be.
see the other email discussing exactly this
--
+-
On 27-Aug-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
> support
> to
> the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> then this is the time to speak up!
>
> At this stage a commit would break alpha and ia64 until
>
On 26-Aug-01 Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 01:20:23PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
>> "Our" csh still behaves differently like any /bin/csh on
>> any other system that I know, and can't be easily made to
>> behave like them.
>
> This is an assertion. Where is your supporting
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harti Brandt writes:
: Version 1.83 of that file breaks the GENERIC build. You probably meant to
: write:
Just fixed.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Its looking great so far! In the two production machines I put it in last
night, zero time outs as expected!! These are both EM machines. On my two
internal ET machines, also zero problems. The machines are in 10BaseT/UTP,
and 10BaseT full duplex.
inphy0: on miibus1
inphy0: 10baseT, 10bas
After a successful make world and kernel this morning, I am having a problem
with ld-elf.so.1/pam/imap.
Everytime someone tries to login to imap the following error is generated.
Aug 27 09:20:17 aNeed2Learn /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:
Aug 27 09:20:17 aNeed2Learn /usr/lib/pam_nologin.so: Undefined
Hi,
Version 1.83 of that file breaks the GENERIC build. You probably meant to
write:
Index: pcic_pci.c
===
RCS file: /usr/ncvs/src/sys/pccard/pcic_pci.c,v
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -r1.83 pcic_pci.c
262c262
< if (sc->csc_
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
> On a -current Alpha box I cannot:
>
> cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/perl
> make cleandir && make cleandir
> make obj
> make depend
> ...
> ===> perl
> Extracting config.h (with variable substitutions)
> Extracting cflags (with variable subs
FreeBSD wahoo.kc.rr.com 5.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #26: Sat Aug 25 02:25:41 CDT
2001
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/WAHOO i386
1). I shut down properly [shutdown -r now] about an hour ago to boot into winblowz
[yeah, but it's the only thing morpheus works in]...
2). When I
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:31:59PM -0700, Andrei Popov wrote:
> ===> libssh
> make: don't know how to make dsa.c. Stop
> *** Error code 2
Something is wrong with your source..perhaps you didn't update it
completely.
Kris
PGP signature
It seems Julian Elischer wrote:
> I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading support
> to
> the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this move,
> then this is the time to speak up!
>
> At this stage a commit would break alpha and ia64 until
> they a
> I am ready to do my megga-commit to add the first stage of KSE-threading
> support to the kernel. If there is any argument as to the wisdom of this
> move, then this is the time to speak up!
>
> At this stage a commit would break alpha and ia64 until
> they are patched. From experience I can s
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Comparative times for 'make buildworld'
> for unmodified and KSE (milestone-2) kernels
>
> unmodified -current
> 2138.464u 3358.378s 1:37:39.77 93.8%842+1080k 45105+176988io 3208pf+0w
> modified KSE kernel
> 2143.716u 3363.311s 1:37:50.33 93.8%
99 matches
Mail list logo
