TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:36:49 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:37:15 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:37:15 - /u
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:08 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:19 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 05:44:19 - /usr
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:03 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:15 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 04:48:15 - /usr
2011/11/16 Warner Losh :
> My second reaction was why not have
>
> #ifndef __FreeBSD_kernel__
> #define __FreeBSD_kernel__ __FreeBSD__
> #endif
>
> in sys/param.h and then just change __FreeBSD__ to __FreeBSD_kernel__ in the
> headers that are affected? But I'm not quite sure what effects that wo
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:15 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:29 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 03:56:29 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:20 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:20 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:19 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:19 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:21 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 02:10:21 - /usr/bin/csu
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:14:43 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:15:00 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:15:00 - /u
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:18 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:32 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 23:32:32 - /usr
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:26 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:35 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-17 00:22:35 - /usr
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:33:50 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:34:03 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 22:34:03 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:43 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:43 - /usr/bin/c
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:23 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:23 - /usr/bin/c
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 17.11.2011 00:44, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?
==
On 17.11.2011 00:21, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 16/11/2011 21:27 Fabian Keil said the following:
Kostik Belousov wrote:
I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed
the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch
greatly improves the chances of getting dum
On 17.11.2011 00:44, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?
==
--- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 +
+++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.00
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Alexander Motin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
>>
>> would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?
>>
>> ==
>>
>> --- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 +
>> +++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 +
>> @@ -
Hi.
On 16.11.2011 23:59, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?
==
--- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 +
+++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 +
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@
for (unit = 0; unit< ctlr->channels; unit++) {
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for arm/arm
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:01 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:27 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 20:50:27 - /usr/bin/csu
hello,
would anyone object to the following ahci(4) patch?
==
--- ahci.c.orig 2011-11-16 21:35:26.0 +
+++ ahci.c 2011-11-16 21:35:41.0 +
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@
for (unit = 0; unit < ctlr->channels; unit++) {
if ((ctlr->ichannels & (1 << unit)) ==
on 16/11/2011 21:27 Fabian Keil said the following:
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
>> I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed
>> the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch
>> greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP host.
>
> I t
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for powerpc64/powerpc
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:30 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:55 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 18:54:55 - /u
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:31 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:44 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 19:23:44 - /usr
Kostik Belousov wrote:
> I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed
> the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch
> greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP host.
I tested the patch trying to get a dump (from the debugger) for
ke
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 06:40:43PM -0700, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a patch that implements 64bit DMA on msk(4). If you use
> msk(4) on a system that has more than 4GB memory, please try the
> patch at the following URL and let me know whether it works or not.
> You need latest msk(4
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 06:18:59PM +, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
> TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on
> freebsd-current.sentex.ca
> TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
> TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - cleaning the object tree
> TB --- 2011-11
.. my suggestion (high level, fluffy) is to try to get
approval/consensus on fixing the immediate problem so things are
consistently horrible, then a second pass to make them consistently
unhorrible.
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
h
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Robert Millan wrote:
> 2011/11/16 Xin LI :
>> Just my $0.02 -- I think we should probably do it in a more
>> centralized place -- otherwise in case someone imported some new code,
>> they have to do the same defined(__FreeBSD__) ||
>> defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)?
>
Hey Robert,
Thanks for jumping into this. Sadly, it is a bit of a mess. Many of the
"multiple BSD flavor" support #ifdefs are actually quite stale by now, so they
should be cleaned up. That's not something you have to cope with, unless you
want, but it colors my first reaction :)
My second
2011/11/16 Xin LI :
> Just my $0.02 -- I think we should probably do it in a more
> centralized place -- otherwise in case someone imported some new code,
> they have to do the same defined(__FreeBSD__) ||
> defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)?
How about something like:
#if defined(__FreeBSD__) && !defin
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - tinderbox 2.8 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - starting HEAD tinderbox run for amd64/amd64
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:30:00 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:31:04 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2011-11-16 15:31:04 - /usr/bin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/16/11 09:27, Robert Millan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Out of the kernel headers that are installed in /usr/include/
> hierracy, there are some which include support multiple operating
> systems (usually FreeBSD and other *BSD flavours).
>
> This patch
Hi!
Out of the kernel headers that are installed in /usr/include/ hierracy, there
are some which include support multiple operating systems (usually FreeBSD and
other *BSD flavours).
This patch adds support to detect GNU/kFreeBSD as well. In all cases, we
match the same declarations as FreeBSD d
On Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:56:12 pm Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 11.11.2011 13:15, schrieb Attilio Rao:
> > Can you try rebuilding your kernel and modules from scratch and see if
> > it fixes your problem?
>
> Sorry for the delay, but my system seems to need being turned off (S5)
> for many hours
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:09:18AM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> On 11/15/11, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:37:44AM +0200, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> >> In NetBSD has been some PaX feature [0] implemented. (ASLR, W^X
> >> (~nxstack), mprotect restriction, veriexec, m
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
> >> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, somet
37 matches
Mail list logo
