Re: Broadcom 440x

2003-12-17 Thread Christian Brueffer
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:30:03PM -0800, Thomas G. Knight wrote: I saw that you had posted a message regarding the Broadcom 440x drivers. I was just wondering if you ever found a driver and if so where at? Take a look at the bfe(4) driver, it supports the Broadcom BCM4401 chips. It's

Re: patch: portable dirhash

2003-12-17 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:12:08 -0500 (EST) Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can somebody please review/commit this to freebsd? it is most of the differences to permit openbsd to use the code. it should not change the code in any functional way. I do not think there is any point in this

Re: patch: portable dirhash

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:12:08 -0500 (EST) Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can somebody please review/commit this to freebsd? it is most of the differences to permit openbsd to use the code. it should not change the code in any

Re: patch: portable dirhash

2003-12-17 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Robert Watson wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:12:08 -0500 (EST) Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can somebody please review/commit this to freebsd? it is most of the differences to permit openbsd to use the

Re: patch: portable dirhash

2003-12-17 Thread Ted Unangst
while on the subject, there's a piece of code something like this in freebsd: /* * We hash the name and then some other bit of data that is * invariant over the dirhash's lifetime. Otherwise names * differing only in the last byte are placed close to one *

Re: patch: portable dirhash

2003-12-17 Thread David Malone
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:09:18PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: while on the subject, there's a piece of code something like this in freebsd: /* * We hash the name and then some other bit of data that is * invariant over the dirhash's lifetime. Otherwise names *

a possible explanation for the mmap benchmarks

2003-12-17 Thread Igor Shmukler
First of all I do not want to start any kind of war here. I studied results of Felix's benchmark some time ago and now I think I have a possible explanation for what happens. I do not mean to invalidate results. I just want to offer a cause, in case someone is unaware. What does mmapbench do?

Machines with = 4GB of RAM

2003-12-17 Thread Julian Elischer
Obviously for 4GB you need PAE but at one stage it was required that to run with 54GB of ram the kernel base was moved down from the 3GB point (0xc000) to the 2GB point (0x8000) Is this still required? And what is the configuration value to achieve this? I've been trying to thing os

Re: Machines with = 4GB of RAM

2003-12-17 Thread David O'Brien
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:44:49PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: Obviously for 4GB you need PAE Or an AMD64 machine. (which don't cost anymore than a machine you'd be worrying aboiut PAE on) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list