On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote:
On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote:
On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
On
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under
9.1-RELEASE-p7
==
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address = 0x25
On 07.10.2013 19:09, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote:
On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote:
On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote:
On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Prodded by davide@, I'd like to collect opinions about raising the
vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage sysctl from 5 to 60, committed at:
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254986
What it does:
Used in lowmem handler
What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use
an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is,
suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call
(and make the '10%' the tunable value). Then you will always make some
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under
9.1-RELEASE-p7
==
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address =
is it planned to fix or should i just treat some non latest 9.* release as
the last non-broken one, and just apply security fixes manually?
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To
patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are
we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending
on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed
from patch(1)?
See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details.
--
Eitan
In message caf6rxgni6kw6qtlmwwqdc2suqp+wa5-ptqwgsbtpa1-x_vz...@mail.gmail.com
, Eitan Adler writes:
patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are
we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending
on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code
9 matches
Mail list logo