On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
The import should be complete now. Please let us know if you
see any problems introduced with this GCC version.
cc -O -pipe -mcpu=i686 -march=i686 -DIN_GCC -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-DPREFIX=\/usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr\
-CURRENT kernel seems to be too optimistic about my scanner speed... from 3224652.361
to 3260358.656 MB/s (that's about 3TB/s), It's too fast for any scanning device in the
universe... especially for async SCSI-2 device
FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #4: Sun Feb 9 11:18:32 MSK 2003
[EMAIL
Thus spake Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Somebody: please fix so this doesn't suck.
Does msdosfs even have an active maintainer? There seem to be
about half a dozen PRs open against it, one of which is a
semi-obvious 4-line patch I submitted last April.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
Thus spake David Leimbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am about to try to make some changes to FreeBSD current...
Should I begin to use read-only CVS instead of CVSup for this work or
is it possible to generate diffs based on CVSup'd sources?
What is the recommend method to use for playing with
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 04:40:34 +1100 (EST)
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Untested fix for this and rev.1.79, and for a similar race in blocking
opens of named pipes for reading:
Solves my problem.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the
Hi Rahul,
Well, it compiles on 5.0-Release-p1. The psm initialization gives some
specs about the device and some of it's features. ... but I don't see
any consequences of this in apps, like mozilla. And under gnome the
pressure sensitivity of the touchpad (e.g., tap to click) is now gone.
I
Hello,
I'll try to reproduce the thing on my machine as soon as possible.
Perhaps it was just because it was Monday, who knows...
Meanwhile I found out that my problem is 100% reproducible.
Since then, I contacted Kirk McKusick, who told me that he will
investigate this issue.
I also gave
Am I the only person having problems with a laptop with
Current and XFree86?
I have a Compaq Evo N800c witch runs with 4.7-STABLE and
XFree86 with no problems. The exact same configuration for
X and same version of XFree86-libs etc does not run on
Current a few days old. The problems started a
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
I'll try to reproduce the thing on my machine as soon as possible.
Perhaps it was just because it was Monday, who knows...
Meanwhile I found out that my problem is 100% reproducible.
Since then, I contacted Kirk McKusick, who told me
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:20:24AM +0100, Gunnar Flygt wrote:
Since it works with 4.7-STABLE it must(?) be a current problem
more than a XFree86 problem. Or?
Any suggestions?
--
Gunnar Flygt, SR
Could you paste your /var/log/XFree86*.log with the error parts? Maybe some will be
able to
Resending due to the fact that I didn' include the
/var/log/XFree86.0.log
I have a Compaq Evo N800c witch runs with 4.7-STABLE and
XFree86 with no problems. The exact same configuration for
X and same version of XFree86-libs etc does not run on
Current a few days old. The problems started a few
Hello,
I also gave him access to our machine, which has a 1.2 TB filesystem
on it.
I have a 1.9TB FS about 4 km from him..
That's great!
Could you please contact him? (do you also have this problem, BTW?)
Thanks,
--[ Free Software ISOs - http://www.fsn.hu/?f=download ]--
Paul A. Mayer wrote:
Well, it compiles on 5.0-Release-p1. The psm initialization gives some
specs about the device and some of it's features. ... but I don't see
any consequences of this in apps, like mozilla. And under gnome the
pressure sensitivity of the touchpad (e.g., tap to click) is
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
I'd like to commit following patch to src/release/Makefile. Here's
background:
A user may want to build their own FreeBSD distribution. During the
release build, pkg_add(1) runs within chroot sandbox to install
mkisofs(8) iff MAKE_ISOS=YES. Imagine what's happen if the user is
living behind
Coercitas Temet'Nosce wrote:
Pardon my poor knowledge about IPFW 2 but if I remember well, IPFW
wasn't a SPI Firewall, which is what I need. Btw, previous Kernel allows
us to fine tune its building for IPF and now, it simply gone...was
really wondering where those features are.
What, exactly,
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:33:41PM -0600, David Leimbach wrote:
I am about to try to make some changes to FreeBSD current...
What is the recommend method to use for playing with the source?
I've attached an e-mail from Matt Dillon that gives a very good de-
scription for setting up a
Apparently, you caught the src tree at the bad moment. See if another
cvsup/buildworld changes anything.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 02:33:48 -0500
Rahul Siddharthan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
The import should be complete now. Please let us know if you
see any problems
Paul A. Mayer said on Feb 10, 2003 at 11:01:45:
Hi Rahul,
Well, it compiles on 5.0-Release-p1. The psm initialization gives some
specs about the device and some of it's features. ... but I don't see
any consequences of this in apps, like mozilla. And under gnome the
pressure
Terry Lambert said on Feb 10, 2003 at 04:07:25:
You actually lose the tap/tap-tap click and doubleclick button
emulation with the new driver, and, as you note, the pressure
sensitivity.
Both of these issues were noted when the driver was posted for
review. It semed the consensus at the
Hi,
Terry Lambert wrote:
Paul A. Mayer wrote:
You actually lose the tap/tap-tap click and doubleclick button
emulation with the new driver, and, as you note, the pressure
sensitivity.
Both of these issues were noted when the driver was posted for
review. It semed the consensus at the time
Hi,
Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
Paul A. Mayer said on Feb 10, 2003 at 11:01:45:
Hi Rahul,
Well, it compiles on 5.0-Release-p1. The psm initialization gives some
specs about the device and some of it's features. ... but I don't see
any consequences of this in apps, like mozilla. And under
Makoto Matsushita [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You know there are many solutions about this issue. IIRC, it can be
easily fixed with passing FTP_PASSIVE_MODE variable to the chroot
sandbox. Following patch was tested on FreeBSD/i386, and it should
work on other archs since this is
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Nate Lawson wrote:
Which is the correct order to do these two functions? If the irq is
enabled before the device is attached, it seems a response cannot be
sent if a packet arrives before the attach. The right way seems to be
to attach the device before setting up an irq
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 10:06:54AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
Maybe something more like the following would be closer to correct:
Yes, that seems to work. After changing carbus.c as you suggested,
kldload'ing sbp.ko and inserting the card results in:
brian# cbb0: card inserted:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 10:16:21PM +0200, Alexey Zelkin wrote the words in effect of:
hi,
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:39:59PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
/*ARGSUSED*/
int
msdosfs_init(vfsp)
struct vfsconf *vfsp;
{
dehashtbl = hashinit(desiredvnodes/2,
recursed on non-recursive lock (sleep mutex) needsbuffer lock @
/local0/src-client/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c:1159
first acquired @ /local0/src-client/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c:1151
panic: recurse
Debugger(panic)
Stopped at Debugger+0x54: xchgl %ebx,in_Debugger.0
db trace
- Original Message -
From: Hiten Pandya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alexey Zelkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: kld problem ? (was: Re: MSDOSFS wastes 256k when nothing is
mounted!)
On Sun,
Since it works with 4.7-STABLE it must(?) be a current problem
more than a XFree86 problem. Or?
I had the same problem -- something to do with files left
over from the original 4.7 installation. Cured by
deinstalling XFree86-* ports, renaming /usr/X11R6 to
something else (in case something was
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
I also gave him access to our machine, which has a 1.2 TB filesystem
on it.
I have a 1.9TB FS about 4 km from him..
That's great!
Could you please contact him? (do you also have this problem, BTW?)
He also has a login on the machine
Dear Hackers,
I'm very pleased to announce that another engineering release
is available for download at
http://www.geocities.com/m_evmenkin/ngbt-fbsd-20030210.tar.gz
Note: This release has new tree layout that matches FreeBSD
source tree.
Quick summary of changes
- New in-kernel RFCOMM
Does anyone manage to make it work under 5.0-RELEASE??? This
card has code Realport Xircom 100/100 + Modem 56 + Modem and
REM56G-100 on the bottom of it. Of course it works with Windows
and Linux. I was trying xe and dc drivers. I found someone on
mailing list archive reporting that he uses it.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:52:11AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
recursed on non-recursive lock (sleep mutex) needsbuffer lock @
/local0/src-client/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c:1159
first acquired @ /local0/src-client/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c:1151
/local0/src-client/sys/kern/kern_synch.c:152: sleeping with
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:34:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Jaroslaw Bazydlo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone manage to make it work under 5.0-RELEASE??? This
card has code Realport Xircom 100/100 + Modem 56 + Modem and
REM56G-100 on the bottom of it. Of course it works with
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
*Grump* I can't get my boxes to stay up more than a few
minutes..evidently this code was not tested prior to commit.
So much for getting work done on the package cluster today.
It was tested. I ran it on my desktop and did several buildworlds on an
Yes, SPI stands for Statefull Packet Inspection. Wasn't aware IPFW was a
SPI Firewall, always thought IPFilter was much better. I used to run
iptables on Linux and tried IPFilter (which is very good imho). IPFW
pages aren't that explicit or I didn't looked at the right place.
Any of you can point
On 2003.02.10 23:37:36 +0100, Coercitas Temet'Nosce wrote:
Yes, SPI stands for Statefull Packet Inspection. Wasn't aware IPFW was a
SPI Firewall, always thought IPFilter was much better. I used to run
iptables on Linux and tried IPFilter (which is very good imho). IPFW
pages aren't that
Yes, kinda :p
Thanx for all your answers btw
-Message d'origine-
De : Simon L. Nielsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2003 23:43
À : Coercitas Temet'Nosce
Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: IPFilter
On 2003.02.10 23:37:36 +0100, Coercitas Temet'Nosce wrote:
Yes,
On 2003-02-09 20:07, Coercitas Temet'Nosce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pardon my poor knowledge about IPFW 2 but if I remember well, IPFW
wasn't a SPI Firewall, which is what I need. Btw, previous Kernel
allows us to fine tune its building for IPF and now, it simply
gone...was really wondering
Hi,
First of all, Thanks to all of you for your help and support.
I have tried to go deeper and deeper to find out how printf works. ((( Of
course the aim of trying to understand the printf, is to understand how
the internals of the BSD kernel work))) till i've faced the following
function:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:32:42PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
*Grump* I can't get my boxes to stay up more than a few
minutes..evidently this code was not tested prior to commit.
So much for getting work done on the package cluster today.
--
Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It was tested. I ran it on my desktop and did several buildworlds on an
smp machine. I should have let it kick around for a bit longer than a few
days, I agree. I will commit the fix in just a moment.
Thanks!
Yeah, I really am sorry about
I gave ULE another try just now, following your recent commits, and
I'm seeing even worse problems:
At boot time when the X server is loading, disk activity occurs
briefly about once every 2 seconds; the mouse is active briefly at the
same time, and nothing much else happens for about a minute
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I gave ULE another try just now, following your recent commits, and
I'm seeing even worse problems:
At boot time when the X server is loading, disk activity occurs
briefly about once every 2 seconds; the mouse is active briefly at the
same time, and
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:43:27PM +0100, Coercitas Temet'Nosce wrote:
Yes, kinda :p
Thanx for all your answers btw
Are you getting confused between ipfw in Linux and ipfw in FreeBSD maybe?
When I first saw ipfw I thought it must be old and obsolete, because it's been around
for a long
The import of gcc 3.2.2 brings a question to mind... Many people have
mentioned problems with SSE / SSE2 instructions, optimizer problems etc
that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
rebuilding my ports with this new compiler because of stability and/or
speed
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
rebuilding my ports with this new compiler because of stability and/or
speed improvements? Or is this point release not worth the effort.
Speed improvements?
* De: Craig Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-02-10 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: GCC 3.2.2 import -- questions ]
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
rebuilding my ports with this new
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
The import of gcc 3.2.2 brings a question to mind... Many people have
mentioned problems with SSE / SSE2 instructions, optimizer problems etc
that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
rebuilding my
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:06:19PM -0600, Juli Mallett wrote:
I would assume the OP meant relative to the previous version of GCC in
tree. Current hasn't been 2.95.x for some time.
Many people are upgrading from 4.7.x to -current for the first
time these days, so I thought I would mention that
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
Many people are upgrading from 4.7.x to -current for the first
time these days, so I thought I would mention that for reference.
GCC 3.2.2 was an incremental bugfix over GCC 3.2.1, and there are no
earth-shattering performance improvements. I have
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, Scott Dodson wrote:
Excellent,
Which optimization strings are you using in make.conf if you don't mind?
--
Scott
Plain cflags and cxxflags taken from /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf
just modify the CPUTYPE as p4
Cheers,
Jiawei Ye
--
Without
On 2003-02-10 20:36 +, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I gave ULE another try just now, following your recent commits, and
I'm seeing even worse problems:
At boot time when the X server is loading, disk activity occurs
briefly about once every 2
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:36:50PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
Very weird. Is this on UP or SMP?
This is on UP. I can still break into DDB, so let me know if you want
me to run console tests (no serial console though).
Kris
msg52192/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
At 9:43 PM -0500 2/10/03, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
There is a long thread on the GCC mailing list right now
complaining about compile-time speed regressions from 2.95.x,
with many complaints coming from Apple:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-02/msg00558.html
Whether these complaints lead to actual
Craig Rodrigues wrote:
There is a long thread on the GCC mailing list right now complaining
about compile-time speed regressions from 2.95.x, with many complaints
coming from Apple:
I don't think the original poster was talking about compile-time speed.
The running speed of applications is
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
You actually lose the tap/tap-tap click and doubleclick button
emulation with the new driver, and, as you note, the pressure
sensitivity.
[...]
Probably the best thing to do would be to disassemble the BIOS on
your box, knowing the
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Paul A. Mayer wrote:
Well, it compiles on 5.0-Release-p1. The psm initialization gives some
specs about the device and some of it's features. ... but I don't see
any consequences of this in apps, like mozilla. And under gnome the
pressure sensitivity of the touchpad
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:31:48 +1100
Tim Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might be better to initialise the table the first time an
msdosfs filesystem is mounted.
This implies that the existence of the hash table be revealed outside the
module. Is this a layering violation? None of the
Hello gentlemen,
several days ago I've installed 5.0-RELEASE onto one
of my machines, which already carried 4.7-RC1. To
avoid possible compatibility problems, I did a clean
install onto another hard drive, and later recompiled
everything. Here I have a couple of annoying issues.
Shell refuses to
Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
several days ago I've installed 5.0-RELEASE onto one
of my machines, which already carried 4.7-RC1. To
avoid possible compatibility problems, I did a clean
install onto another hard drive, and later recompiled
everything. Here I have a couple of
Scott Long wrote:
Rhett Monteg Hollander wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
several days ago I've installed 5.0-RELEASE onto
one
of my machines, which already carried 4.7-RC1. To
avoid possible compatibility problems, I did a
clean
install onto another hard drive, and later
recompiled
63 matches
Mail list logo
