Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I did was implement an 'exec' portal method, which executes a program
with given arguments, obtained from the path components and portal.conf
rules, and returns a - basically read-only - descriptor connected to its
stdout and stderr. Kind of simple,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 05:46:49AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Peter Pentchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I did was implement an 'exec' portal method, which executes a program
with given arguments, obtained from the path components and portal.conf
rules, and returns a - basically read-only -
Hello,
I am running FreeBSD 4.1 on an Intel-III box. It is not a diskless
machine, so root fs is still local, but I need to boot kernel over
ethernet.
Reason for such a requirement: I am doing some kernel debugging and it is
relatively quicker (after a panic) to recompile kernel on a server and
Nick Rogness wrote:
Just to be sure I have it right. When the kernel diverts the packet to
natd, via ipfw:
1) kernel sends packet to natd
2) natd read() the packet
3) natd screws with it (changes dest addr,etc)
4) natd write() the packet
5) kernel reinjects the packet back into the
Aloha!
In an earlier mail to the thread I pointed to the STREAM benchmark for
memory sub systems. Additionally, I wrote that I knew there were another
benchmark that tries to analyze word sizes, access latencies for the
different memories in the mem sub system. I know can name that benchmark
(or
First let me state that I really don't know the proper place to be
putting this. If this is the wrong list, I appologize, please let
me know the prefered method for submitting minor patches. It seemed
that send-pr was just for reporting issues, not for fixing them also,
if this should've gone
In the last episode (Mar 16), Joachim Strmbergson said:
In an earlier mail to the thread I pointed to the STREAM benchmark
for memory sub systems. Additionally, I wrote that I knew there were
another benchmark that tries to analyze word sizes, access latencies
for the different memories in
Hi,
One way to boot the kernel over the network is to use PXE (if your
machine is recent enough to support it *well* : that is with a recent
version of the PXE firmware)
there is no real document on PXE booting
you can read a note by Alfred Perlstein on
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 11:04:43AM +, Jordan DeLong wrote:
It seemed that send-pr was just for reporting issues, not for fixing
them also
Nope. At the bottom of the send-pr form, is a "How to fix" section.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 11:35:29AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 11:04:43AM +, Jordan DeLong wrote:
It seemed that send-pr was just for reporting issues, not for fixing
them also
Nope. At the bottom of the send-pr form, is a "How to fix" section.
--
--
Some body just told me that williams Paul from Columbia University (Bill
Paul @ Freebsd.org) has written that
kind of book. But I can't get his exact email address at FreeBSD.org to
ask him the reference.
GR.
Look, I have not now nor have I *ever* written a book of any kind. Whoever
Thierry Herbelot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi,
One way to boot the kernel over the network is to use PXE (if your
machine is recent enough to support it *well* : that is with a recent
version of the PXE firmware)
there is no real document on PXE booting
you can read a note by Alfred
Paul Saab wrote:
Hi,
My problem is that the NIC I'm trying to boot from is an on-board fxp on
a Motorola p-III M/B (I assume there is no specific "PXE rom", as PXE
may be included in the BIOS)
will your "intel board" upgrade .exe work in this setup ?
TfH
Upgrade the PXE rom
Thierry Herbelot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Paul Saab wrote:
Hi,
My problem is that the NIC I'm trying to boot from is an on-board fxp on
a Motorola p-III M/B (I assume there is no specific "PXE rom", as PXE
may be included in the BIOS)
will your "intel board" upgrade .exe work in
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Bill Paul wrote:
Some body just told me that williams Paul from Columbia University (Bill
Paul @ Freebsd.org) has written that
kind of book. But I can't get his exact email address at FreeBSD.org to
ask him the reference.
GR.
Look, I have not now nor
Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:59:24PM +0800, David Xu wrote:
Hello Julian,
Friday, March 16, 2001, 12:18:15 PM, you wrote:
JE David Xu wrote:
I wonder status of KSE, I am dreaming rewrite our application
server using kqueue+pthread(KSE), current, we use
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:59:24PM +0800, David Xu wrote:
Hello Julian,
Friday, March 16, 2001, 12:18:15 PM, you wrote:
JE David Xu wrote:
I wonder status of KSE, I am dreaming rewrite our application
server using kqueue+pthread(KSE), current, we use poll()+pthread
because
Hello -hackers
The sysctl_kern_proc routine in kern_proc.c doesn't handle the case
when no processes match the given criteria. I.e., if no processes
match, it will return 0 even though it never called SYSCTL_OUT; thus,
the output data is junk. This can be demonstrated by giving ps(1)
arguments
Howdy,
GCC 2.95.3 was just released. I did notice that there are some bug fixes
in the optimizer, and some various other fixes etc. Considering the
recent discussion about incorrect code generation due to -O2 and above,
are there any plans to import this new release into the FreeBSD source
tree?
19 matches
Mail list logo
