Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
> Well, *should* we have a built-in "test"? I gather the original ash didn't
> have it due to the KIS principle. But if it speeds things up considerably,
> it's not much of a bloat, is it? I'd volunteer to write it.
Unfortunately, the only way to tell for sure woul
The generally accepted method (AFAIR) is mmddxx,
where xx starts at 00 and is incremented for each change during that day. This
allows for multiple updates in a single day without causing problems for
situations such as 3 updates today followed by one update each day for the next
4 days
Warner thinks he may have broken the kernel in his last few commits. If
so, the fix is to replicate card_if.m line in conf/files & change pccard
to card...
(Warner was on vacation when he called me and asked me to post this
e-mail for him...He appologizes for the mistake, and said he'll be
back
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200, Mikko T wrote:
> >Anatoly Vorobey:
>
> >On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
>
> >> I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
> >> so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the
Yet another way.
I used
#include
...
io_fd = open("/dev/console", O_RDWR, 0);
ioctl(io_fd, KDENABIO, 0);
and
ioctl(io_fd, KDDISABIO, 0);
to turn it off again.
Is there a "right" way of doing it? Linux has a iopl call that sets the
i/o privilege level, it seems much easier and at least bette
* Leif Neland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000425 12:24] wrote:
> I'd like to turn on a relay to the power for my laserprinter 3 rooms away
> where the server is located.
>
> I have an i/o board with a 8255 24 bit i/o port.(IIRC)
>
> So I wrote a simple userland program to do inb/outb, but it dumped cor
On 25/04, Leif Neland wrote:
| I guess I have these options:
| A: write a driver/kernel module to access the port.
| B: use an extra parallel port. (I use 2 at the moment)
| C: use a serial port; I have 3-4 available.
D: use i386_set_ioperm to get access to the I/O port space
To Unsubscribe:
I think you need to have a fd open on /dev/io to do inb/outb.
Jason Young
Access US(tm) Chief Network Engineer
> -Original Message-
> From: Leif Neland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Turning on a relay.
>
>
> I'd
I'd like to turn on a relay to the power for my laserprinter 3 rooms away
where the server is located.
I have an i/o board with a 8255 24 bit i/o port.(IIRC)
So I wrote a simple userland program to do inb/outb, but it dumped core with
BUSERR, I presume because userland is not supposed to do i/o
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 04:39:43PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
> -On [2420 20:02], Arun Sharma ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Comments ?
> >
> >$ cat test.c
> >#include
> >#include
> >$ cc -D_POSIX_SOURCE -c test.c
> >In file included from test.c:2:
> >/usr/include/sys/socket.h:47: s
> Linux runs into problems at less than 4000 threads because of a limit on
> the total number of processes, even if the thread stack size is decreased.
16xxx if you use a 2.3.99pre-x kernel?
At least I thought that that was being mentioned as one of the major new things in
2.4.x kernels.
Marco
>Anatoly Vorobey:
>On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
>> I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
>> so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the ${MAKE_SHELL} does,
>> for me, result in about 10% faster make world
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 07:47:01AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> OK, having to call fpsetmask(0) is an acceptable workaround. So if I
> do:
>
> #ifdef __freebsd___
> fpsetmask(0);
> #endif
>
> Then this should work on all versions of freebsd?
#ifdef __FreeBSD__
fpsetmask(0);
#e
OK, having to call fpsetmask(0) is an acceptable workaround. So if I
do:
#ifdef __freebsd___
fpsetmask(0);
#endif
Then this should work on all versions of freebsd?
--david
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:05:23 -0700, Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
Brooks> On Mon, Apr
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
> I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
> so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the ${MAKE_SHELL} does,
> for me, result in about 10% faster make world time, and speeds port
>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:44:59PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote:
> I am running FreeBSD 4.0-RELEASE on x86 with gcc 2.95.2 and the
> httperf-0.6 port gives a SIGFPE and dumps core when run against a system
> that has no web server running. (The default behavior is to measure
> localhost when no argum
16 matches
Mail list logo
