on 08/04/2011 03:00 Jeremy Chadwick said the following:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
[sorry for double post, it should have been hackers not hardware]
Guys,
could you please review and
on 08/04/2011 05:16 Garrett Cooper said the following:
Yeah. It seems like something else like EINVAL (just an example --
probably a bad one) would be better. Also, please be careful as
returning ENODEV seems to be UFS-specific:
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.
See intro(2) or
on 07/04/2011 23:20 Garrett Cooper said the following:
As a generic question / observation, maybe we should just
implement 'errors=remount-ro' (or a reasonable facsimile) like Linux
has in our mount(8) command? Doesn't look like NetBSD, OpenBSD, or
[Open]Solaris sported similar
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 08/04/2011 03:00 Jeremy Chadwick said the following:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
As a generic question / observation, maybe we should just
implement 'errors=remount-ro' (or a reasonable facsimile) like Linux
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very bad way?
--
wbr,
Boo
--- af_inet.c.orig 2011-04-07 18:48:28.850931143 +0400
+++ af_inet.c
I had been letting this discussion settle a little bit before jumping in, but
we've done some work in this area for a few of our platforms. The work was
rather ham-fisted, but I've been looking for a way to try to get it cleaned up
and back to FreeBSD.
Basically, we have a way of detecting
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:08:38 +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
attached patch break something in the very bad way?
At least, it may break some
on 08/04/2011 15:20 Bruce Evans said the following:
But the default behaviour is backwards, especially for read-mostly
removable media. The default should be ro, possibly with an automagic
upgrade to rw iff the media really needs to be written too. Writing
timestamps for file system and
on 08/04/2011 15:36 Andrew Duane said the following:
What I was hoping to do was design a better mechanism for passing that R/O
detection from the device to the filesystem code. Our implementation uses a
platform sysctl that checks the incoming device name against some hardware or
software
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch break
something in the very bad way?
This is a gratuitous change that would
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradovboo...@lazybytes.org wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch
break something in
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch break
something in the very bad way?
On 4/8/11 5:40 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradov boo...@lazybytes.org wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation more human-readable? Will the attached patch
break something in the very bad way?
Who's using IPv4
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sergey Vinogradov boo...@lazybytes.org wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex
format? Isn't dot-decimal notation more
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:53, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I've been curious about for a while that I haven't had an
opportunity to look into is: what does IPV6 look like? I understand
that the /netmask bit is added to the end of addresses, but what does
the netmask
For SCSI-attached disks, yes. But other hardware has write-protect sensing (SD
cards, CD-roms, our platform). So if you can do that, you should
Cleaning up after a failed write is a real problem, one that I needed to avoid.
/Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Andriy Gapon
On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Mike Bristow wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
So, maybe,
[snip]
So, maybe, while following the POLA, we should add an option, as Daniel
mentioned above? To output the CIDR?
Eh... I don't know if doing this would be wise because it might break
some 3rd party mechanisms for parsing the output (as broken as you
might think it is), in particular (for
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human readable, we'd output 10.2.3.4/24
So, maybe, while
On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пишет:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 6:08 AM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
If we really wanted to make it human
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:16:17PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
08.04.2011 19:55, Mike Bristow пиÑеÑ:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:40:56PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Warner Losh wrote:
On Apr 8, 2011, at
On 08/04/2011 16:53, Garrett Cooper wrote:
One thing I've been curious about for a while that I haven't had an
opportunity to look into is: what does IPV6 look like? I understand
that the /netmask bit is added to the end of addresses, but what does
the netmask actually look like?
Like this:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Warner Losh wrote:
Non-contiguous netmasks are *not* legal anymore in IPv4.
Just reference the RFC and everyone will agree... *oops* ;-)
On the general thread:
I'd seriously stop bothering with any decisions that will change the way
IPv4 works or has worked or the output
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:36:45PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradovboo...@lazybytes.org wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4 netmask is displayed by ifconfig in hex format?
Isn't dot-decimal notation
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM, J. Hellenthal jh...@dataix.net wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:36:45PM +0400, Sergey Vinogradov wrote:
On 08.04.2011 19:23, Mike Oliver wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 08:08, Sergey Vinogradovboo...@lazybytes.org wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have a question: why ipv4
27 matches
Mail list logo
