On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
I'm really not a fan of NO_PFIL_HOOKS as an option.
I'm not talking about NO_PFIL_HOOKS but options PFIL_HOOKS in GENERIC.
Too many people may foot shoot themselves trying to upgrade from 4-STABLE
to 5.0.
If you make
with the appropriate comment about things being
more complicated and slow will ease 4.0-5.0 upgrade and do not prevent
someone from building custom kernel without it.
Sincerely yours,
Sergey Mokryshev.
--
Sergey S. Mokryshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMP453, MOKR-RIPN
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
Unfortunately nobody cares to look into PR database (conf/44576)
In case PFIL_HOOKS really slows IP processing I don't mind keeping this
out of GENERIC, however it should be noted in UPDATING and release notes.
I did
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 01:31:26AM +0300, Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
[ snip ]
ldconfig does not have proper anchor and is mistakenly ordered to run
first (without any filesystems mounted (except R/O root) yet).
This is a good example of why I
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:08:40AM +0300, Sergey Mokryshev wrote:
Yes, I don't see these errors. But some scripts can change execution order
without anchors like mountall
For example, adding ldconfig dependancy directly into named brings
to /etc/rc.d/SERVERS,
but I'm not sure if it breaks something in diskless environments.
I could not find a PR on this. Should I fill one?
Sincerely yours,
Sergey Mokryshev.
--
Sergey S. Mokryshev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMP453, MOKR-RIPN
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Mike Makonnen wrote:
These are benign. Those scripts are used by NetBSD only.
You don't see the errors on boot because of a 2/dev/null in /etc/rc.
Cheers.
Yes, I don't see these errors. But some scripts can change execution order
without anchors like mountall
For
Hello, Crist!
You wrote to Sergey Mokryshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Aug 2002
11:15:20 -0700:
[skipped]
$ grep PFIL /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/AMBER options
PFIL_HOOKS
You need to include options PFIL_HOOKS in your kernel
configuration to be able to use ipfilter as a loadable module
(removed questions@ from Cc)
Hello, David!
You wrote to Sergey Mokryshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 21 Aug 2002
11:26:32 -0500:
Another point - you can upgrade ipfilter stuff without rebooting,
it is useful in situations where minimum downtime is possible.
PFIL_HOOKS does not add much
Hello, David!
You wrote to Sergey Mokryshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 21 Aug 2002
12:07:43 -0500:
No, ipl.ko is not broken. It depends on pfil(9).
DWC Shouldn't we try to make a pfil.ko that ipl.ko depends on then?
I make a brief look into code (I am not a kernel hacker nor a
programmer
rtc.ko
$ grep PFIL /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/AMBER
options PFIL_HOOKS
You need to include options PFIL_HOOKS in your kernel configuration to
be
able to use ipfilter as a loadable module.
Sincerely yours,
Sergey Mokryshev.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
11 matches
Mail list logo
