On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Oops, error on my part; /proc does need to exist. So, I guess the
question is this: Can devfs's error handling in the case of /dev being
non-existant be improved?
Barely, because without /dev, how do you plan to open the console ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Silbersack w
rites:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Oops, error on my part; /proc does need to exist. So, I guess the
question is this: Can devfs's error handling in the case of /dev being
non-existant be improved?
Barely, because without
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
An error message would be sufficient; my concern was that someone
might run into this and spend hours trying to figure out which of X
variables was the problem.
Right, but the only way to get an error message is to let /sbin/init
die and have
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:30:47PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
Anyway, both ways I can trigger the bug (find . -type f | xargs mutt, and
actually running fetchmail -a) do generate a LOT of work, so it's actually
possible that your diagnosis (mbuf exhaustion) is correct; trouble is, this
To upgrade from xfree-3 to xfree-4 I removed all my installed
ports but I lost mail program (I use XFMail, sorry for this :-)
It compile and install fine but crashes with this message:
The application crashed due to fatal error
All unfinished messages were saved
_: Report the bug with all the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Andrea Campi wrote:
Anybody has any idea how to properly fix?
Can you test the following patch?
David.
Index: uipc_usrreq.c
===
RCS file:
Kernel is from 20 Oct 2001 sources. I was running cvsup
grabbing the latest sources into a clean /usr/src directory.
Softupdate were enabled and vfs.vmiodirenable=1.
--
Steve
GNU gdb 4.18
Copyright 1998 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public
Actually- not alpha. Happened under i386, so it seems like it might be more
related to the general console changes..
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Lemon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bootverbose shows that second copy of devices appearse on ASUS CUSL2-C or
TUSL2-C:
atkbdc-: atkbdc0 already exists, using atkbdc1 instead
sc-: sc0 already exists, using sc1 instead
vga-: vga0 already exists, using
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:32:07 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Right, but the only way to get an error message is to let /sbin/init
die and have the kernel print the message. /sbin/init cannot
print the message when there is no /dev/console can it ?
Yes, it can, if the kernel
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Garrett Wollman w
rites:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 11:32:07 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Right, but the only way to get an error message is to let /sbin/init
die and have the kernel print the message. /sbin/init cannot
print the message when there
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:14:13 +0600, Nickolay Dudorov wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrey A. Chernov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bootverbose shows that second copy of devices appearse on ASUS CUSL2-C or
TUSL2-C:
atkbdc-: atkbdc0 already exists, using atkbdc1 instead
sc-: sc0
Bootverbose shows that second copy of devices appearse on ASUS CUSL2-C or
TUSL2-C:
atkbdc-: atkbdc0 already exists, using atkbdc1 instead
sc-: sc0 already exists, using sc1 instead
vga-: vga0 already exists, using vga1 instead
vga-: line is especially dangerous since cause fake second VGA
Hi,
how about the following patch (untested) regarding the newer athlon xp
processor type ? if needed, I could submit a PR.
Index: bsd.cpu.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/mk/bsd.cpu.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.2.2.4
diff -u
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
: Hi,
:
: how about the following patch (untested) regarding the newer athlon xp
: processor type ? if needed, I could submit a PR.
Shouldn't Athlons and AthlonXPs be able to use i686 (pentiumpro)
instruction set optimizations?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 04:23:13PM -0400, Jerry A! wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
: Hi,
:
: how about the following patch (untested) regarding the newer athlon xp
: processor type ? if needed, I could submit a PR.
Shouldn't Athlons and AthlonXPs be
Jerry A! wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
: Hi,
:
: how about the following patch (untested) regarding the newer athlon xp
: processor type ? if needed, I could submit a PR.
Shouldn't Athlons and AthlonXPs be able to use i686 (pentiumpro)
Shouldn't Athlons and AthlonXPs be able to use i686 (pentiumpro)
instruction set optimizations?
No. They are different cpu cores that have different optimization
strategies.
Yes, all Athlons can use i686 code while the k6's can't. Further, without
doing any scientific testing, I would
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:30:40 +0200 (CEST), Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Jerry A! wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
: Hi,
:
: how about the following patch (untested) regarding the newer athlon xp
: processor type ? if needed, I
19 matches
Mail list logo